NEW TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Volume 2:

Acts - Revelation

Duncan Heaster

Carelinks Publishing

P.O. Box 152

Menai NSW 2234

AUSTRALIA

Carelinks.net

2

ACTS

1:1- see on Lk. 1:3.

Reading Luke and Acts through together, it becomes apparent that the author [Luke] saw the acts of

the apostles as a continuation of those of the Lord Jesus. This is why he begins Acts by talking

about his ―former treatise‖ of all that Jesus had begun to do, implying that He had continued His

doings through the doings of the apostles (cp. Heb. 2:3, Jesus ―began‖ to speak the Gospel and we

continue His work). See on Acts 2:6; 2:7; 8:40; Lk. 24:47.

1:2 Acts 1:2 RV says that on the day the Lord was taken up, ―He had given commandments through

the Holy Spirit unto the apostles‖. The day the Lord was taken up, He gave one commandment to

the apostles, related to their possession of the Holy Spirit: to go into all the world with the Gospel.

But why does Luke speak in the plural, ―commandments‖? It could be that here we have one of

many examples of Hebrew idiom being used by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, even

though they wrote in Greek. There is in Hebrew an ‗intensive plural‘, whereby something is put in

the plural (e.g. ―deaths‖ in Is. 53:9) to emphasize the greatness of the one thing (e.g., the death, of

Messiah). Could it not be that here we have something similar? The one great commandment is to

go into all the world with the Gospel. We are the light of this world. We, the candles, were lit so that

we might give light to others. Our duty is not merely to inform others of our doctrinal position, but

to gain, win or catch [as fishermen] our fellow men for Christ.

1:3 A case could be made that Luke‘s account in his Gospel and in the Acts actually emphasizes

how wealthy and middle class people came to the Lord- e.g. Joanna wife of Chuza, Cornelius the

Centurion; Dionysius; Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus. Perhaps a reason for this was that he

dedicated his works to the ―noble‖ [Gk. ‗well born‘, ‗wealthy‘] Theophilus (Acts 1:3). Luke, it

seems to me, was writing to Theophilus because he wanted to convert him. And so he gives other

examples of wealthy people who had also converted. He was urging the middle class to allow the

radical call of Christ to reach to them.

Acts 1:3 says that the Lord showed Himself to be alive to the disciples "by many infallible proofs".

The suggestion is that they simply didn't accept Him as He stood there before Him; they failed to

grasp that He was for real. They gave Him food to eat to check Him out; and He again ate before

them in Galilee on His initiative.

1:6 Consider how that once the Gospel is preached world-wide, then the end will come (Mt. 24:14);

and how the Lord replied to the question: ‗When are you coming back?‘ by telling the questioners to

go and preach the Gospel (Acts 1:6,8), as if the preaching of the word and the timing of the second

coming are related. Likewise in the Olivet prophecy, the Lord gave them some signs of His return

but told them that firstly, i.e. most importantly, the Gospel must be preached to all the world (Mk.

13:10)- implying that it is spreading the Gospel world-wide, not looking for the fulfillment of signs,

that will bring about His return. Surely this would associate the exact timing of the Lord's return- for

which He and the Father are ever eager- with the time when we have satisfactorily spread the

Gospel far enough. When the harvest is ripe, then it is harvested. The Lord has to delay His coming

because of the slowness and immaturity of our development; in these ways we limit Him. And it

isn‘t enough to think that if we merely preach world-wide, therefore the Lord's coming will

automatically be hastened. It is the bringing forth of fruit to His Name that is important to Him.

1:7 When the watchman of Is. 21:11 calls out ―What hour of the night [will it come]?‖ (RVmg.) the

answer is ―Turn ye‖ (RV). This is when it will come- when Israel turn again in repentance. This is

alluded to in Acts 1:7,8; Mk. 13:28-33, where the answer to the question ‗When will Jesus return?‘

is basically: ‗Preach to Israel; lead them to repentance. That‘s when the Lord Jesus will return‘.

The disciples' request to know exactly when the Kingdom would be restored ('When will Ez.21:25-

27 be fulfilled?') was met with a promise that while they would never know the exact date, that was

immaterial as they would possess the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit soon (Acts 1:7,8)- implying

3

that what they would do with them would be a primary fulfilment of the Kingdom prophecies which

they were enquiring about.

1:8- see on Mt. 24:14; Mk. 13:32,33.

The record of the Acts is a continuation of all that Jesus began to do and teach as recorded in the

Gospels (Acts 1:1). The preachers were witnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:8). The logical objection to their

preaching of a risen Jesus of Nazareth was: ‗But He‘s dead! We saw His body! Where is He? Show

Him to us!‘. And their response, as ours, was to say: ‗I am the witness, so is my brother here, and

my sister there. We are the witnesses that He is alive. If you see us, you see Him risen and living

through us‘. In this spirit, we beseech men in Christ‘s stead. Just as the Lord strangely said that His

own witness to Himself was a valid part of His overall witness, so our lives are our own witness to

the credibility of what we are saying.

When we read of how we are to be "witnesses" to all the world, a look under the surface of the text

shows that the Greek word 'martyr' is being used (Acts 1:8). We're all martyrs. Augustine said that

―The cause, not the suffering, makes a genuine martyr.‖ In his play Murder in the Cathedral, T. S.

Eliot defines a martyr as one ―who has become an instrument of God, who has lost his will in the

will of God, not lost it but found it, for he has found freedom in submission to God. The martyr no

longer desires anything for himself, not even the glory of martyrdom‖. We can all enter into the

definition of witness / martyrdom in this sense, insofar as we are 'in' the suffering Christ, even if in

practice we may never be called to take a single blow to our body as the result of our witnessing.

The possession of the Holy Spirit in the first century was possessing "the powers of the world to

come" (Heb.6:5), showing that at that time there was a foretaste of the coming Kingdom. Thus in

answer to the question about whether He would then fully restore the Kingdom of God, our Lord

basically said: 'When, exactly, you can't know. But you will receive Holy Spirit power coming upon

you (Acts 1:8 AVmg.) and will spread the Gospel world-wide from Jerusalem; which is tantamount

to saying that in a limited sense the Kingdom is coming right now, although when it will finally be

fully established is not for you to know'. Further support for this is found in our suggestion

elsewhere that Kingdom prophecies like Is.2 were fulfilled to some degree in the spread of the

Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century.

1:9 ―A cloud received him‖ (Acts 1:9) – surely it was a cloud of Angels not water droplets. But so it

looked to them standing on earth, and the record is written from that perspective.

1:11 The same Jesus who went into Heaven will so come again in like manner (Acts 1:11). The

record three times says the same thing. The ―like manner‖ in which the Lord will return doesn‘t

necessarily refer to the way He gradually ascended up in to the sky, in full view of the gazing

disciples. He was to return in the ―like manner‖ to what they had seen. Yet neither those disciples

nor the majority of the Lord‘s people will literally see Him descending through the clouds at His

return- for they will be dead. But we will ‗see‘ Him at His return ―in like manner‖ as He was when

on earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Jesus who loved little children

and wept over Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their salvation, is the One

who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will confront us at judgment day.

1:14- see on Acts 2:42; Lk. 2:19.

There are a number of words and phrases which keep cropping up in Acts, especially in the early

chapters, which are kind of hallmarks of that early ecclesia. ―With one accord‖ is one such. We

begin in Acts 1:14: "These all continued with one accord in prayer". Then 2:1: "When the day of

Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place". Now over to v.46:

"Continuing daily with one accord... breaking bread... with... singleness of heart". And on to 4:24:

"They lifted up their voice to God with one accord". Now to 5:12: "They were all with one accord

in Solomon's porch". There is another example in 15:25 too. So it's quite obvious, then, that the fact

the early ecclesia was "with one accord" in those early, heady days is stamped as a hallmark over

4

this record. But this phrase "with one accord" is also used in Acts about the united hatred of the

world against those early brethren and sisters. The Jews ran upon Stephen "with one accord" (7:52),

those of Tyre and Sidon were "with one accord" (12:20), "The Jews made insurrection against Paul

with one accord" in Corinth (18:12), and at Ephesus the mob "rushed with one accord" against Paul

(19:29). The same Greek word is used in all these cases (and it scarcely occurs outside Acts). It's

quite obvious that we are intended to visualise that early ecclesia as being "with one accord". But

we are also supposed to imagine the world around them ―with one accord" being against them. The

difference between them and the world was vast. The world was actively united against them, and

thereby they came to be strongly united with each other.

1:15- see on Acts 3:7.

1:18 The way Judas "burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18) may not

be only a description of a bungled suicide. "Bowels" is elsewhere always used figuratively. One

wonders whether it doesn't also describe how he fell down headlong, as Saul did when he knew his

condemnation, and burst asunder within him, and poured out his heart in desperation, in the very

pathetic little field he had bought for the price of the Son of God. In an utterly terrible figure,

Ezekiel describes the condemnation of Israel as them being a woman trying to pluck off her own

breasts (Ez. 23:34). This was and will be the extent of self-hatred and desperation. She will be

alienated from her lovers of this world, and God's mind will be alienated from her (Ez. 23:17,18,22).

The utter aloneness of the condemned is impossible to plumb.

1:20 What was true of Judas was thus also true of Israel in general; in the same way as the pronouns

used about Judas merge from singular into plural in Ps. 55:13-15 ("a man mine equal... let death

seize upon them"), as also in Ps. 109:3 cp. v.8. Similarly the condemnation of Jewry for crucifying

Christ in Ps. 69:25 ("let their habitation be desolate") is quoted in the singular about Judas in Acts

1:20.

Psalm 109 is a prophecy of Christ‘s betrayal and death (:8 = Acts 1:20). The satans (―adversaries‖)

of the Lord Jesus which the Psalm speaks of (:4,20,29) were the Jews, and the specific ‗Satan‘ of v.

6 was Judas. Psalm 55:13–15 foretells Judas‘ betrayal of Jesus. It speaks of Judas in the singular,

but also talk of his work as being done by a group of people – the Jews, in practice: ―It was you, a

man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together... let death seize

them (plural), and let them go down quickly into hell‖ (cp. Judas‘ end). Likewise the other prophecy

of Judas‘ betrayal also connects him with the Jewish system: ―My own familiar friend, in whom I

trusted, which did eat of my bread (cp. Jesus passing the sop to Judas), has lifted up his heel against

me. But You, O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them‖ (Ps. 41:9,10).

Thus Judas is being associated with the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus, and therefore he, too, is

called a Devil. Both Judas and the Jews were classic ‗devils‘ due to their surrender to the flesh. This

is further confirmed by a look as Psalm 69. Verse 22 is quoted in Romans 11:9,10 concerning the

Jews: ―Let their table become a snare before them... let their eyes be darkened‖. The passage

continues in Psalm 69:25: ―Let their habitation be desolate; let none dwell in their tents‖. This is

quoted in Acts 1:16,20 as referring specifically to Judas, but the pronouns are changed accordingly:

―This scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake

before concerning Judas... Let his [singular] habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein:

and his bishoprick let another take‖.

Ps. 109:8 is quoted in Acts 1:20 concerning Judas, suggesting that the preceding v.6 reveals Christ's

thoughts about him: "Set Thou a wicked man over him: and let satan stand at his right hand",

implying that Jesus prayed for the Jewish satan to help or co-operate with Judas (which is how the

idiom of standing at the right hand is used in Ps. 109:31). This is tantamount to not praying that

Judas would overcome the advances of the Jews which the Lord would have been aware they were

making. But he could encourage Peter that he had prayed for him to resist these advances (Lk.

22:32). The whole of Ps. 109 is a prayer requesting the punishment of Judas, asking God to confirm

5

him in his supreme apostasy: "Let his prayer become sin" (Ps. 109:7). The last section of the Psalm

(109:22-29) describes Christ's sufferings on the cross in language that has many connections with

Ps.22 and 69; and as with them there is a sudden breakthrough at the end into looking forward to

praising God "among the multitude" (Ps. 109:30), as there is in Ps. 22:22. This may mean that it was

on the cross that the enormity of Judas' sin was fully realized by Christ, although he had previously

recognized it to some degree before the cross (Jn. 19:11; Mt. 26:24).

2:3- see on Acts 2:45.

2:5 It seems that the early brethren chose to understand the Lord‘s universal commission as meaning

going out to preach to Jews of all nations, and they saw the response of Acts 2 as proof of this. And

yet ―all nations‖ is used about the Gentiles in all its other occurrences in Matthew (4:15; 6:32;

10:5,18; 12:18,21; 20:19,25). Such intellectual failure had a moral basis- they subconsciously

couldn‘t hack the idea of converting Gentiles into the Hope of Israel. They allowed themselves to

assume they understood what the Lord meant, to assume they had their interpretation confirmed by

the events of Acts 2… instead of baring themselves to the immense and personal import of the

Lord‘s commission to take Him to literally all.

2:6 The Acts record repeatedly describes the converts as ―the multitude of the disciples‖ (2:6; 4:32;

5:14,16; 6:2,5; 12:1,4; 15:12,30; 17:4; 19:9; 21:22), using the same word to describe the ―multitude

of the disciples‖ who followed the Lord during His ministry (Lk. 5:6; 19:37). There is no doubt that

Luke intends us to see all converts as essentially continuing the witness of those men who walked

around Palestine with the Lord between AD30 and AD33, stumbling and struggling through all their

misunderstandings and pettiness, the ease with which they were distracted from the essential… to be

workers together with Him. See on Acts 1:1.

2:7 Luke describes the ―amazement‖ at the preaching and person of Jesus (Lk. 2:47,48; 4:36; 5:26;

8:56; 24:22), and then uses the same word to describe the ―amazement‖ at the apostles (Acts 2:7,12;

8:13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16). See on Acts 1:1.

2:12 Men who began doubting and cynical were pricked in their heart, they realised their need, and

were baptized within hours (Acts 2:12,37). The men who marvelled and doubted whether Peter was

anything more than a magic man were within a few hours believing and being baptized (Acts 3:12;

4:4). There is a speed and power and compulsion that pounds away in the narrative.

2:14- see on Acts 10:35,36.

It would have become public news in Jerusalem that the man who nearly killed Malchus had slipped

in to the High Priest‘s yard, and just got out in time before they lynched him. And the fool he had

made of himself would for sure have been exaggerated and gossiped all round. Jerusalem would

have had the small town gossip syndrome, especially at Passover time. Every one of his oaths with

which he had disowned his Lord would have been jokingly spread round in the three days while

Jesus lay dead. But then Peter‘s preaching of the Gospel after the resurrection reached a pinnacle

which probably no other disciple has reached, not even Paul. No one individual made such huge

numbers of converts, purely on the basis of his words of preaching. Nobody else was so persuasive,

could cut hardened men to the heart as he did, and motivate them to be baptized immediately. He

brought men far more highly educated and cultured than himself to openly say from the heart:

―What shall we do?‖, in the sense: ‗Having done what we‘ve done, whatever will become of us?‘.

And of course Peter had been in just that desperate position a month ago. He was just the man to

persuade them. And yet on the other hand, there was no man more unlikely. The rules of social and

spiritual appropriacy demanded that someone who had so publically denied his Lord keep on the

back burner for quite some time. And Peter of all men would have wished it this way.

Peter‘s speech of Acts 2 was made in response to a mocker‘s comment that the speaking in tongues

was a result of alcohol abuse (Acts 2:13,14). We would likely have told those men not to be so

6

blasphemous, or just walked away from them. But Peter responds to them with a speech so powerful

that men turned round and repented and were baptized on the spot.

2:15 drunk- see on 2 Pet. 2:13.

2:16-21 Many attempts to understand prophecy, not least the book of Revelation, have fallen into

problems because of an insistent desire to see everything fulfilling in a chronological progression,

whereas God's prophecies (Isaiah is the classic example) 'jump around' all over the place as far as

chronological fulfillment is concerned. And this principle is not only seen in Bible prophecy. The

historical records in the Old Testament tend to be thematically presented rather than chronologically

(Joshua is a good example of this); and the Gospel records likewise. It especially needs to be

recognized that in line with so much OT prophecy, neither the Olivet prophecy nor its extension in

the Apocalypse can be read as strictly chronological. Thus Lk. 21:8-11 gives a catalogue of signs,

and then v. 12 jumps back to the situation before them: "but before all these things..." (21:27,28;

Mk. 13:10 are other examples). These principles are all brought together in the way Peter interprets

Joel 2. The comments in brackets reflect the interpretation which Peter offers later in his address.

He gives each part of it a fulfillment not in chronological sequence with what has gone before:

"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel [i.e. you are seeing a fulfillment of this prophecy

before your eyes]: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall

prophesy [fulfilled by the apostles after Christ's ascension]... and I will shew wonders in heaven

above, and signs in the earth beneath [the miracles of the Lord Jesus during His ministry]... the sun

shall be turned into darkness [the crucifixion], and the moon into blood [also referring to an

unrecorded event at the crucifixion?], before that great and notable day of the Lord come [the

second coming; or the resurrection?]: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the

name of the Lord shall be saved [fulfilled by the crowd accepting baptism on the day of Pentecost]"

(Acts 2:16-21).

2:21- see on Mt. 14:30; Mt. 19:27.

Joel 2:32 seems to prophesy of multitudes calling upon the name of the Lord in the ‗last days‘. The

preliminary fulfillment of this in Acts 2:21 must surely be repeated in the ultimate ‗last days‘. And

it may be that it is multitudes of Diaspora Jews who respond, as it was in Acts 2…

The description of "the remnant" being saved out of Jerusalem and mount Zion, the temple mount,

may mean that they go into the temple area in the last days to seek safety as the Jews did in AD70,

and this is where they are at the moment of the Lord's intervention. Joel 2:32 must have had its

primary fulfilment in the redemption of this remnant, and it therefore has an application to the

salvation of the latter-day Jewish remnant out of Arab-occupied Jerusalem: "Whosoever shall call

on the name of the Lord (i.e. truly pray for deliverance in faith, perhaps through calling upon

themselves the Lord's name through baptism into Christ) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and

in Jerusalem (cp. 2 Kings 19:30,31 for the mention of those two terms) shall be deliverance, as the

Lord hath said (through Isaiah and his prophets), and in the remnant...". This passage is quoted in a

different context in Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13, but this does not preclude its application to the

faithful remnant in Jerusalem in the last days. This New Testament usage is regarding how a convert

should eagerly call upon himself the Lord's salvation/deliverance from sin in Christ. This should

therefore be done with the same sense of urgency and desperate intensity as the persecuted remnant

of the last days will do, like their counterparts within Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time.

2:22 Peter appealed to Israel: ―Hear these words...‖, and then went on to quote a prophecy of how

the Lord Jesus would be raised up [i.e. after His resurrection], ―and him shall ye hear‖ Acts 2:22;

3:22,24). The record adds that the crowd received Peter‟s word and were baptized (Acts 2:41),

whereas elsewhere in Acts men and women receive the word of the Lord Jesus. It is simply so, that

when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are His. This is

7

how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential

witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us.

2:25 With David we should be able to say that we see the Lord [and he meant, according to the New

Testament, the Lord Jesus] ever before our face, so that we will not be moved by anything (Acts

2:25).

2:26 David said that just because "our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding",

therefore he wanted to be as generous as possible in providing for the work of God's house (1

Chron. 29:14-16). So sure is the hope of resurrection that the Lord interpreted God being the God of

Abraham as meaning that to Him, Abraham was living. Death is no barrier to God's continuing

identity with His people. His faith in the resurrection is so sure that He speaks of death as if it is not.

And in our weakness, we seek to look beyond the apparent finality of death likewise. Because

David firmly believed in a resurrection, "my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; moreover also

my flesh shall tabernacle in hope" (Acts 2:26 RV). His whole life 'tabernacled in hope' because of

what he understood about resurrection. This was and is the power of basics. Yet we can become

almost over-familiar with these wonderful ideas such as resurrection.

2:27- see on Dan. 4:13.

Those who heard the message wanted baptism immediately; they had been convicted by the

preacher of a Christ-centred message, not just intellectually teased (Acts 8:36; 9:18). Lydia, the

Philippian jailer, Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the crowds at Pentecost… were all baptized

immediately. The Lord added daily to the church (2:27; 16:5)- they didn‘t tell candidates for

baptism to wait even until the next Sunday, let alone for a few months ‗to think it over‘. They

understood the first principle: baptism is essential for salvation. Believe or perish. They saw the

absoluteness of the issues involved in the choice to accept or reject the Son of God. ―Beware,

therefore…‖ was their warning to their hearers (Acts 13:40). They made no apologies, they didn‘t

wrap up the message. They taught the need for repentance more than seeking to prove that they

were right and others wrong (although there is a place for this in our witness in the right contexts).

They made it clear that they were out to convert others, not engage in philosophical debate or the

preaching of doubtful interpretations.

2:28- see on Jn. 15:7.

―The Kingdom of God‖ was a title used of Jesus. He ‗was‘ the Kingdom because He lived the

Kingdom life. Who He would be, was who He was in His life. At the prospect of being made ―full

of joy‖ at the resurrection, ―therefore did my heart rejoice‖ (Acts 2:26,28). His joy during His

mortal life was related to the joy He now experiences in His immortal life. And this is just one of

the many continuities between the moral and the immortal Jesus.

2:29- see on Jn. 16:25.

David is one of the major OT types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Ps. 16 are quoted in

Acts 2:25,29 concerning Jesus: ―I have set the Lord always before me... he is at my right hand...

thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption‖. These

are words describing David‘s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified

was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But Acts 2:29 also

quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before

him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David

understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered

to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the

One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. 1 Chron.

17:17 in Young‘s Literal has David saying: ―Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high‖ [i.e.

Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‗the Christ‘, ‗the

man raised on high‘, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the ―morning

8

without clouds‖, admitting that ―verily my house is not so with God‖ (2 Sam. 23:1-5). This is only

really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future

Messiah. The main reason why there is so much deep personal detail about David is because we

are intended to come to know him as a person, to enter into his mind- so that we can have a clearer

picture of the mind and personality of the Lord Jesus. This is why the thoughts of David, e.g. in

Ps.16:8-11, are quoted as being the very thoughts of Christ (Acts 2:27). So Christ-centred was

David's mind that he "foresaw (not "saw" - disproof of the pre-existence) the Lord (Jesus) always

before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved" (Acts 2:25). David was

obsessed, mentally dominated, by his imagination of Christ, so much so that his imagination of his

future descendant gave him practical strength in the trials of daily life. Small wonder we are bidden

know and enter into David's mind. Likewise the book of Genesis covers about 2000 years of history,

but almost a quarter of the narrative concerns Joseph; surely because we are intended to enter into

Joseph, and thereby into the mind of Christ.

2:30 Acts 2:30-33 says that our Lord's exaltation in Heaven fulfils, albeit primarily, the promise to

David of Christ reigning on his throne. This is confirmed by 2 Sam.7:12 saying that God would "set

up" David's seed to have an eternal Kingdom; and "set up" in the Septuagint is the same word as

"resurrect", as if in some way the promise would be realized after Christ's resurrection.

2:33 John repeatedly records Christ‘s description of the cross as Him being ―lifted up‖ (Jn. 3:14;

8:18; 12:32,34). But Peter uses the very same word to describe Christ‘s exaltation in resurrection

and ascension (Acts 2:33; 5:31). Looking back, Peter saw the cross as a lifting up in glory, as the

basis for the Lord‘s exaltation afterwards. At the time, it seemed the most humiliating thing to

behold. It was anything but exaltation, and Peter would have given his life in the garden to get the

Lord out of it. But now he saw its glory.

2:33-36 An appreciation of the Lord's exaltation will in itself provoke in us repentance and service

(Acts 2:33-36). A vision of the exalted Lord Jesus was what gave Stephen such special inspiration

in his final minutes (Acts 7:56).

2:34 There are some passages which imply the Lord Jesus was somehow conscious during His three

days in the grave. Evidently this was not the case. And yet the resurrection loosed the birth-pangs of

death, Peter said (Acts 2:34). Those three days are likened to labour, in the Lord's case bringing

forth life through death. Yet He was dead and unconscious. But to the Father, He saw things simply

differently. Sometimes God speaks from His timeless perspective, at other times His words are

accommodated to us. Likewise from the Father's perspective, the spirit of Christ went and preached

to the people of Noah's day at the time of His death. Yet this didn't happen in real time in such a

way.

2:36 Peter‘s growth of understanding of Jesus as ‗Christ‘ also grew. He declared Him as this during

His ministry (Jn. 6:69), and also as ‗Lord‘, but he preached Him as having been made Lord and

Christ after the resurrection (Acts 2:36). He saw the Lord‘s status as having changed so much, even

though he used the same words to describe it, and therefore he responded the more fully to Him. He

so often refers to the Name of Christ, which had now been given Him (Acts 4:12 RV)- as if this new

Name and the redemption in it was the motive power for his witness. Jesus had been born a Saviour,

Christ the Lord (Lk. 2:11). But Peter uses each of these titles as if they had been given to the Lord

anew, after His resurrection. And indeed they had been. They were no longer just appropriate

lexical items for Peter to use; they were the epitome of all that the Lord was and had been and ever

would be, all that He stood for and had enabled. And he preached them to men as the basis upon

which salvation and forgiveness was now possible.

2:36-38- see on Acts 5:31.

2:37- see on Acts 2:12.

9

The NT emphasizes the power of the cross, and the horrendous fact that we are really asked to share

in His sufferings (e.g. Acts 9:16; 2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 1:29; 3:10; 2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:1,13; Rev. 2:10).

The Acts record seems to bring out how the Lord's people shared in the Lord's mortal experiences

(e.g. Acts 4:7 = Mt. 21:23,24). The early converts were "pricked" (Acts 2:37), using the same word

as in Jn. 19:34 for the piercing of the Lord's side. Paul speaks of how in his refusing of payment

from Corinth, ―I made myself servant unto all", just as the Lord was on the cross. In accommodating

himself to his audience, ―to the weak became I as weak", just as the Lord was crucified through

weakness. In our preaching and in our ecclesial lives, we articulate elements of the Lord‘s cross in

our attitude to others.

2:38 Rom.5:16 and 6:23 describe salvation as "the gift"- inviting comparison with "the gift" of the

Spirit in Acts 2:38. Indeed Acts 2:39 seems to be quoting Joel 2:32 concerning salvation as if this is

what the gift of the Spirit was. Peter's reference to the promised gift being to those "afar off" alludes

to Is.57:19: "Peace (with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". Eph.2:8 also describes the

gift as being salvation, saying that "by one Spirit (this gift) we all have access to the Father" (2:18).

This is further validated by the fact that Eph.2:13-17 is also alluding to Is.57:19: "Ye who

sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace... (who) came and

preached peace to you which were far off". Ps.51:12,13 draws a parallel between possessing God's

holy Spirit, and benefiting from His salvation.

2:39- see on Mt. 14:30.

Peter‘s maiden speech on the day of Pentecost was a conscious undoing of his denials, and

consciously motivated by the experience of forgiveness which he knew he had received. Having

been converted, he was now strengthening his Jewish brethren. He went and stood literally a stone‘s

throw from the High Priest‘s house, and stood up and declared to the world his belief that Jesus was

and is Christ. Peter also preached in Solomon‘s Porch, the very place where the Lord had declared

Himself to Israel as their Saviour (Jn. 10:33; Acts 5:12). Peter at the time of his denials had been

"afar off" from the Lord Jesus (Mt. 26:58; Mk. 14:54; Lk. 22:54- all the synoptics emphasize this

point). Peter's denials would've been the talk of the town in Jerusalem. So when in Acts 2:39 he says

that there is a promised blessing for "all" that are far off... I think he's alluding back to himself,

setting himself up as a pattern for all other sinners to find salvation. That's perhaps why he talks of

"all" [those others] who are [also] "far off" [as he had been]. He could've just spoken of "they" or

"those" who are far off. But the use of "all" may suggest he is hinting that the audience follow his

pattern. This, in Peter's context, makes the more sense if we see one of the aspects of the promised

Spirit blessing as that of forgiveness and salvation- as in Acts 3:25,26, the blessing was to be turned

away from sins. See on Acts 3:26; 1 Pet. 2:25; Lk. 5:8.

2:40- see on Lk. 3:5.

God sees the world as actively evil: "this present evil world" (Gal. 1:4), under His condemnation (1

Cor. 11:32); he that is not with the Lord Jesus is seen as actively against Him, not just passively

indifferent (Lk. 11:23). It is absolutely fundamental that our separation from this world is related to

our salvation. The act of baptism is a saving of ourselves not only from our sins, but all from "this

untoward generation" in which we once lived (Acts 2:40).

The essential demarcation 2000 years ago was between the believer and the world, not believer and

believer. Peter even appealed to people to save themselves from the surrounding generation by

being baptized (Acts 2:40).

2:41 Converts are described as being added to the church, and yet also added to Christ; the play on

ideas seems deliberate (Acts 2:41,47 cp. 5:13,14; 11:24).

Luke gives progress reports on the early Christian mission in quantitative terms, as if analyzing the

success of the work and possibly suggesting how it could be done even better (Acts 2:41,47; 4:4;

5:14; 6:1,7; 9:31; 13:43; 14:1; 17:4,12; 18:10; 19:26; 21:20).

10

2:42 They ―continued‖ in the doctrine, [example of] prayer and fellowship of the apostles (Acts

2:42,46; 8:13). The same word is used of how we must ―continue‖ in prayer (Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2),

i.e. follow the example of the early ecclesia in prayerfulness. The disciples had ―continued‖ in

prayer after the Lord‘s ascension (Acts 1:14), and now their converts continued in prayer too. Note

in passing that we continue in the pattern of those who convert us. Thus to start with, Simon

―continued with Philip‖ (Acts 8:13). This means that who we are affects the spiritual quality of

others.

Luke's writings (in his Gospel and in the Acts) give especial attention to meals and table talk.

Societies tended to distinguish themselves by their meal practices. Who was allowed at the table,

who was excluded- these things were fundamental to the self-understanding of persons within

society. So when the Lord Jesus ate with the lowest sinners, and Peter as a Jew ate with Gentiles...

this was radical, counter-cultural behaviour. No wonder the breaking of bread together was such a

witness, and the surrounding world watched it with incredulity (Acts 2:42,46; 4:32-35). Note too

how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer

(Acts 16:15,34).

The unity between believers at the breaking of bread is brought out in Acts 2:42, where we read of

the new converts continuing in

the teaching of the apostles,

the fellowship

the breaking of bread

the prayers.

It could be that this is a description of the early order of service at the memorial meetings. They

began with an exhortation by the apostles, then there was ―the fellowship", called the agape in Jude

12, a meal together, and then the breaking of bread itself [following Jewish Passover tradition],

concluded by ―the prayers", which may have included the singing of Psalms. The performance of

this feast was a sign of conversion and membership in the body of Christ. This is how important it

is.

2:44 Some of the Roman leaders initially pushed the idea of Plato, that all land should be state

owned and be given up by individuals to the state. Yet Acts 2:44; 4:32 use language which is

directly taken from Plato‘s Republic: ―All things common… no one called anything his own‖. The

early church was seeking to set up an idealized alternative to the Roman empire!

2:45 The Holy Spirit appeared to the apostles as ―cloven / parted tongues‖ (Acts 2:3), giving to each

man what each needed (Eph. 4:8-13). In response to this, we read that the apostles sold their

possessions and ―parted them [s.w. ―cloven‖] to all men, as every man had need‖ (Acts 2:45).

Likewise Paul speaks of how God gave the Spirit gifts to every member of Christ‘s body, so that

there was no part which ―lacked‖ (1 Cor. 12:24). And he uses the same idea when telling the

Corinthians to give their excess funds to provide grace / gifts for their brethren who ―lacked‖ (2

Cor. 8:15). The simple picture, which even in different circumstances abides for us today, is that

God‘s thoughtful and specific generosity to us, His giving us of unique gifts as we ‗have need‘,

should lead us to materially assisting those likewise who ‗have need‘.

Material giving to the Lord‘s cause was associated with the breaking of bread in the early church

(Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor. 16:1,2), after the pattern of how every male was not to appear empty before

Yahweh (Heb. ‗to appear for no cause‘) at the Jewish feasts (Dt. 16:16). We cannot celebrate His

grace / giving to us without response. Because Israel had been redeemed from Egypt, they were to

be generous to their brethren, and generally open handed (Lev. 25:37,38). This is why the Acts

record juxtaposes God‘s grace / giving, and the giving of the early believers in response (Acts 4:33

cp. 32,34-37). The bread and wine of the drink offerings were to accompany sacrifice; they were not

the sacrifice itself. And likewise the spirit of sacrifice must be seen in us as those emblems are

11

taken. The Laodiceans' materialism resulted in them not realizing their desperate spiritual need for

the cross (Rev. 3:17,18); Lemuel knew that riches would make him ask "Who is Yahweh?"; he

wouldn't even want to know the Name / character of the Lord God (Prov. 30:9). The Jews'

experience of redemption from Haman quite naturally resulted in them giving gifts both to each

other and to the poor around them (Es. 9:22). "You shall lend unto many nations" has often been

misread as a prediction of Jewish involvement in financial institutions and banking (Dt. 28:12). But

the context is simply that "The Lord shall open unto you His good treasure, the heaven to give the

rain of your land... and you shall lend unto many nations". If God opens His treasure to us, we

should open our treasures to others, even lending with a spirit of generosity, motivated by our

experience of His generosity to us. Because Yahweh had redeemed Israel, they were not to be petty

materialists, cheating others out of a few grams or centimetres in trading. The wealth and largeness

of God‘s work for them should lead them to shun such petty desire for self-betterment.

2:46

The Size Of The Early Church

The Acts and epistles (and Revelation?) focus on the period AD33-AD70; it is easy to imagine that

the early church was markedly different from our present set up in terms of size, organization and

details like the instruction of candidates for baptism. However, closer examination reveals that this

was not so. Prior to this study I had the impression that the Christian community in those days was

vast compared to our own, with the Roman empire littered with large ecclesias so that Christians

were a household name due to their numbers alone, as Anglicans, for example, are today. Once the

small size (relatively) of the early community is appreciated, it becomes easier to relate to their

situation and to see that there is indeed a close bond between those days and our own due to these

similarities. Not only so, but if a community of 20,000 people (at a reasoned guess) could "turn the

world upside down" by their preaching, what of us with our infinite advantages?

There is a strong emphasis on the existence of house churches throughout the New Testament: Acts

2:46; 5:42; 16:34,40; 18:8; 20:20; 21:8; Rom.16:6; 1 Cor.1:11; 16:19; Col.4:15; 2 Tim.3:6;

Philemon 2; Titus 1:11; 2 Jn.10. This list is impressive. It would seem likely that most New

Testament ecclesias could fit into a domestic 'house' with the exception of Jerusalem. The

remarkable lack of archaeological discoveries of big Christian meeting places pre AD70- and that

not for want of trying- would confirm this. Thus the whole Corinth ecclesia could fit inside one

house (Paul wrote Rom.16:23 from Corinth). It is worth noting the evidence for household baptisms

being quite frequent: 2 Tim.4:19; 1 Cor.1:16; Rom.16:10,11; Acts 16:15 (these probably refer more

to the domestic servants and employees rather than the children). It is conceivable that the salvation

of Noah and his adult household by baptism (1 Pet.3:20 cp. Heb.11:7) was the prototype for these

household baptisms. There is good reason to think that most baptisms in this period were mainly

done by the apostles- if the ecclesias continued growing at the rate they did when Paul was among

them then there would be hints of a far bigger community. For example, Acts 16:5 speaks of the

congregations growing in number daily- implying baptisms were being done daily, immediately a

candidate was ready (not left to the weekend for convenience!). Thus these household groups would

develop into the house churches which seem to have been the typical first century ecclesia. It is

worth sidestepping to Mt.10:35,36: "A man's foes shall be they of his own household" in the

holocaust of AD70 and that to come; i.e. brother betrayed brother (spiritually and naturally) within

the household ecclesias.

There seems no reason to suspect that there were many other ecclesias apart from those mentioned

in the New Testament, apart from Crete having ecclesias in "every city" (i.e. not many), and a

number of ecclesias in Galilee and Judea, presumably pockets of the disciples' relatives and some

who remembered the Lord's miracles. We know that generally the Jews rejected the Gospel; if a few

thousand were converted around the time of the first Pentecost (out of a Jewish population of about

12

2.5 million in the land, deducible from Josephus), it is unlikely that there was a continuation of that

pattern of mass conversion. It may be that Paul's equation of the Jewish believers of the first century

with the seven thousand who refused to worship Baal has a literal application (Rom.11:4) in that

there were about 7,000 Jewish believers. By the time of Acts 4:4 "the number of the men (that

believed) had come to be (Greek- not as AV) about five thousand". The only verse that seems to

contradict this impression is Acts 21:20: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there

are which believe". However, the Greek word translated "many" is nowhere else translated like this.

The sense really is 'You know what thousands believe'- i.e. 'you know the number of Jewish

believers, it's in the thousands'. The same word is translated "what" in 2 Cor.7:11 in the sense of

'how much'. It is significant that Acts 9:31 describes the churches Paul persecuted as being in the

provinces of Judaea, Galilee and Samaria; every house church between Jerusalem and Tarsus had

personally been entered by Paul (Acts 8:3). This in itself suggests reasonably small numbers, and in

passing reminds us of how familiar Paul would have become with the areas in which our Lord lived,

probably entering the very houses of believers in towns like Bethany and Capernaum. Doubtless his

conscience for Christ grew at great speed in that period. The other provinces such as Idumea,

Decapolis, Iturea, Trachonitis etc. do not appear to have had any ecclesias in. In a short space of

time after his conversion, Paul was able to introduce himself to all the ecclesias in Judea in person

(Gal.1:22 cp. v.24). The 5,000 Jewish converts made at Jerusalem would have largely returned to

their original homes in the Roman world (Acts 2:9,10) or been driven to similar places by the

persecution. This significant Jewish presence in probably all the ecclesias of the Roman world

would account for the epistles nearly all warning against the Judaizers, and their frequent references

back to Old Testament incidents and passages which would have been largely unknown to the new,

ex-pagan Gentile converts.

Outside Israel numbers also seem to have been small- there were only seven ecclesias ("the seven

churches") in the province of Asia (Rev.1:11), the elders of whom all turned away from Paul (2

Tim.1:15; there is evidence that Timothy and some other faithful brethren were still in the area).

Indeed by the time Peter wrote to this area just prior to AD70 he seems to address himself only to

scattered individuals holding the Truth throughout the whole of Asia Minor (1 Pet.1:1). John's

letters give a similar impression. Philippi seems to have been a house church based on Lydia's

household at the time Paul wrote to them. He says he had enjoyed fellowship with the whole

ecclesia "From the first day until now" (Phil.1:5)- i.e. from the time of the first visit there which

resulted in Lydia's baptism. Thus the whole ecclesia knew Paul personally- "Those things, which ye

have... seen in me, do" (Phil.3:17; 4:9). This indicates that there had been no new baptisms since his

visit. Again, note the similarity with present missionary policy of dissuading new converts from

doing their own baptisms until there is another visit by mature brethren. Paul's evident affection for

this ecclesia is understandable if they were a small, united family unit whom he had initially taught

and baptized.

Similarly Paul could constantly remind the Thessalonians of his personal example which they had

witnessed, again implying that there had been no new baptisms since his visits. The emphasis

cannot be missed: "Ye know what manner of men we were...our Gospel came unto you... in power,

and in the Holy Spirit (i.e. they all heard it at the same time)... ye became followers of us... what

manner of entering in we had unto you... ye turned to God from idols (Paul's entering in by the

Gospel had been to the whole ecclesia at the same time)... yourselves... know our entrance in unto

you... after we... were shamefully entreated as ye (all) know at Philippi, we were bold to speak unto

you the Gospel (i.e. the whole ecclesia heard it all at that one time)... ye remember, brethren, our

labour... ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every (each) one of you

(personally)... as a father doth his children"- i.e. Paul had personally fathered each of them by

preaching to them. Seeing he was only in Thessalonica "three Sabbath days" the numbers involved

could not have been great (1 Thess.1:5,6,9; 2:1,2,9,10,11- there are many others). Paul's great

knowledge of the ecclesia and theirs of him also suggests small numbers (2 Thess.1:4; 3:7). Every

13

ecclesia knowing about the Thessalonians (1 Thess.1:8) even quite soon after their conversion

(when the letter was probably written) suggests a small number of ecclesias world-wide,

notwithstanding a highly efficient grape vine based on the 'messengers of the ecclesias' (cp.

Rom.1:8; Col.4:7,8; 2 Pet.3:15) resulting in epistles and news spreading fast. Similarly the faith of

the Rome ecclesia was "spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom.1:8).

1 Cor.4:17 implies Paul had visited most of the ecclesias: "...as I teach every where, in every

church". Thus would account for Paul being able to say what the customs of all churches were

concerning head coverings (1 Cor.11:16), and his personal knowledge of so many of the individuals

and ecclesias to which he wrote. He could tell the Romans that "the churches of Christ salute you"

(Rom.16:16)- i.e. he had personally seen that their faith was spoken of in all the ecclesial world

(Rom.1:8). His personal knowledge of the Rome (house?) ecclesia is beautifully shown by him

asking them to give each other a holy kiss from him (Rom.16:16), surely implying close personal

knowledge of all of them. Paul's great personal involvement with all the ecclesias and often all their

members individually resulted in the pressure of caring for all the churches that was upon him (2

Cor.11:28). His courage under imprisonment led to "the majority of the brotherhood" (Phil.1:14

Moffat) being encouraged to preach more boldly, suggesting most of them knew him well. His pain

because of the Corinth ecclesia's mistakes becomes more real when we appreciate that they all knew

him personally, having all had the ordinances delivered to them by Paul at the same time (1

Cor.11:2), all having been begotten by Paul's preaching (1 Cor.4:15,16).

Thus we have good reason to think that the average ecclesia of the first century was probably the

same size as the average ecclesia today, although often based around a family unit and with a group

of Jewish believers either fleeing persecution or who had broken away from the local synagogue,

perhaps under the influence of one of those who was converted at Pentecost. Thus they would have

been close-knit units, making it easier for us to appreciate how in such an household ecclesia the

brother who was the head of the house could easily abuse the brethren who worked for him as

labourers (James 5:4), and sheds more light on the commands concerning how believing employers

should treat their brother-employees. A spirit of loving co-operation in the daily round would have

been vital if ecclesial life was to prosper.

The large numbers converted around Pentecost can lead us to think that first century preaching was

totally unrelated to our experience; however, it seems that this was a special, one-off occurrence.

The statement that "many" believed as a result of the various preaching campaigns can also mislead

us; the Greek for "many" used on those occasions probably means a figure under 50 in Acts 8:25;

16:23; 24:10; Lk.1:1; 12:19; Mk.5:9,26. Remember how the first 'overseas' preaching mission in

Cyprus failed to produce a single convert until their tour reached the end of the island.

2:46 The record of the body of Christ in the New Testament begins with descriptions of the Lord

preaching in houses. The word ‗house‘ occurs a huge number of times in the Gospels, especially in

Luke‘s record. He seems to have been very sensitive to the way the Lord entered into homes and did

things there. We can be sure that these homes became house churches after His resurrection. The

establishment of the church began with the believers gathering in the temple, but breaking bread

―from house to house‖ (Acts 2:46). Fellowship in Christ is about this family sense of community. In

practice, the early body of Christ was a fellowship of house churches. They preached and

worshipped both in the temple and ―in every house‖, i.e. every house church (Acts 5:42).

Acts 2:46 (NKJV) records how the early brethren broke bread with ―simplicity of heart‖; and we

likewise, in our memorial meetings and in our lives, must unswervingly focus upon Him and the

colossal import of His cross.

Almost every major New Testament description of the Lord‘s coming and what He will bring with

Him is also given an application to our experience in this life: the Kingdom of God, eternal life,

salvation, justification, sanctification, perfection, glorification… and of course, judgment. All these

14

things shall come; but the essence of them is being worked out in the life of the believer now. All

this is brought to our attention whenever we attend the breaking of bread. That ―table‖ at which we

sit is a picture of the future banquet and table in the coming Kingdom. The ―gladness‖ which

accompanied the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46) is the same word used about the ―rejoicing‖ at the

future marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:7) and the Lord‘s return (1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24).

Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God

is highlighted. After the establishment of the first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems to

emphasize the pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord" was a

hallmark of the early brethren (Acts 1:14; 2:1,46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25); but the world were in "one

accord" in their opposition to that united ecclesia (Acts 7:57; 12:20; 18:12; 19:29).

2:47- see on Mt. 19:27-29.

In Acts 3:4, Peter commanded the lame man: ―Look on us‖. The lame man responded, and the

people were amazed at the subsequent miracle. But Peter then tells them: ―Ye men of Israel, why

marvel ye at this man? or why fasten ye your eyes on us [i.e., why do you ‗look on us‘], as though

by our own power or godliness we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and

of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus‖ (Acts 3:12,13). I wonder if Peter

was here publically acknowledging an inappropriate turn of phrase, when he had asked the lame

man to ‗Look on us‘- and immediately, he humbly and publically corrected himself, redirecting all

glory and all eyes to the Father and Son.

3:6- see on Mt. 19:27.

Peter told the lame man: ―In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk"; but the healing

was because of Peter's faith in Christ's Name (Acts 3:6,16). The Jerusalem Bible makes this

apparent: "It is the name of Jesus which, through our faith in it, has brought back the strength of this

man". The RV has: "By faith in his name hath his name made this man strong" - as if the power of

the name of Jesus is waiting to be activated by human faith.

3:7 Luke has a favourite Greek word, often translated ―forthwith… immediately‖ (Acts 3:7; 5:10;

9:18; 12:23; 13:11; 16:26,33). This is quite some emphasis; and Luke uses the very same word a lot

in his Gospel, as if to show that the speed and power and achievement of the Lord‘s ministry is

continued in that of His ministers now (Lk. 1:64; 4:39; 5:25; 8:44,47,55; 13:13; 18:43; 19:11;

22:60). The word is scarcely used outside Luke‘s writing. And he uses many other words to stress

the speed and urgency and fast moving nature of the Lord‘s work. They are worth highlighting in

your Bible; for our ministry is a continuation of that of our early brethren (Acts 9:18-20,34; 10:33;

11:11; 12:10; 16:10; 17:10,14; 21:30,32; 22:29; 23:30).

Peter understood what it was to be in Christ. All that he did, all that he preached and taught by word

and example, was a witness to the one in whom he lived and had his being. As he reached forth his

right hand to lift up the cripple, he was manifesting how the right hand of God had lifted up (in

resurrection) and exalted His Son and all those in Him (Acts 3:7). Likewise he took Tabitha by the

hand and then lifted her up and ―presented her alive‖ (Acts 9:41), just as the Father had done to His

Son. When Peter ―stood up‖ after his conversion (Acts 1:15; 2:14), he was sharing the resurrection

experience of his Lord. And now he reflected this in his preaching to others. As God stretched forth

His hand to heal through Christ (Acts 4:30), so Peter did (Acts 9:41). And he includes us all in the

scope of this wondrous operation: for as God‘s hand exalted Christ, so it will exalt each of us who

humble ourselves beneath it (1 Pet. 5:6).

3:8 The result of healing lame people in Acts 3:8; 14:10 was that they leaped (this is emphasized)

and walked, praising God. This seems to be couched in the language of Is.35:5,6 concerning lame

people leaping and praising God; a prophecy we normally apply to the future Kingdom.

3:11- see on Mt. 14:30.

15

3:12- see on Acts 2:12.

The men who marvelled and doubted whether Peter was anything more than a magic man were

within a few hours believing and being baptized (Acts 3:12; 4:4). There is a speed and power and

compulsion that pounds away in the narrative. The preaching of a God hurt by sin, passionately

consumed in the death of His Son, feeling every sin, rejoicing over every repentance and

baptism…this was something radically different in the 1st century world, just as it is in ours. And

such a God imparted a sense of urgency to those who preached Him and His feelings and ways and

being, a need for urgent response, a need to relate to Him, which was simply unknown in other

religions. The urgency of man‘s position must be more up front in our witness. Christianity went

wrong in the 2nd

century AD because the church abstracted God and His being into nothingness, to

the point that the urgent import of the true doctrines was lost in practice. May this not be the case

amongst us.

3:16 Peter commented upon the healed beggar: "By faith in his name has his name made this man

strong" (Acts 3:16 RV). But whose faith was Peter referring to? The beggar appears to have just

been opportunistically begging for money from Peter (Acts 3:3). It was surely by Peter's faith that

the man was healed, and not by his own faith. For Peter didn't invite the beggar to have faith in

anything. And Peter explains to the Jews that he had made the man to walk not through his own

power (Acts 3:12). So here again we have an example of a third party being healed as a result of

another man's faith.

Trust or faith in God comes from not trusting upon human understanding, but upon the

understanding [s.w. meaning, knowledge, wisdom] that is God‘s (Prov. 3:5). In this lies the

importance of truth in Biblical interpretation. So understanding, correctly perceiving meaning, true

wisdom… are related to having a real faith. The Proverbs go on to plead for correct understanding,

because this will be the source of a Godly life of faith in practice. There is therefore a connection

between ―faith" in the sense of belief, and the fact the essential doctrines of Christianity are called

"the faith"; the noun "the Faith" and the verb 'to believe / have faith' are related. This is because a

true understanding of the one Faith will inevitably lead to true faith, and therefore works; for faith

and works are inseparable. This relationship is brought out in Acts 3:16: "His name, through faith in

his name, hath made this man strong... yea, the faith which is in Him (Christ) hath given him (the

healed man) this perfect soundness".

3:17 It had been generous spirited of the Lord to pray on the cross: ―Father, forgive them, for they

know not what they do‖. He may have meant they were relatively ignorant, or it may be that He felt

they were so blinded now that the recognition of Him they once had had was now not operating.

And Peter, who probably heard with amazement those words from the cross as he beheld the Lord‘s

sufferings, found the same generous spirit to men whom naturally he would have despised: ―In

ignorance ye did it‖ (Acts 3:17 cp. Lk. 23:34).

The generosity of the Father and Son to humanity is awesome- so eager are they for our repentance.

God so pleads for Israel to return to Him in Hosea and Isaiah that He almost takes the blame onto

Himself, cooing over His people as having been tossed and afflicted- when it was His own judgment

of them that caused it. And I think this explains the difficulty of Acts 3:17-19, where Peter appeals

to the Jews to repent, because they had murdered the Lord Jesus "in ignorance". The Lord's own

parables explained that they did what they did with open eyes- "this is the heir, come let us kill

him!‖. Yet in God's passionate desire for their repentance, He appears to view their awful sin in the

most gracious possible light.

3:18 Because the Bible is the only inspired book there is, this can lead us to seeing the book as some

kind of icon; it is the only ‗thing‘ we have in our experience which is directly from God. Realizing,

however, that the original autographs alone were inspired can help us see the Bible we read for what

it is- the living, albeit translated and passed down, word of God Himself. God spoke ―by the mouth

16

of all his prophets‖ (Acts 3:18). It was their spoken words which were inspired; but there is no

specific guarantee that the written form and transmission of them was likewise inspired. Their

mouths, and not the pens of every scribe who wrote the words, were inspired by God- even though

it would be fair to say that the preservation and transmission of their written words was the work of

‗providence‘, and the Spirit of God in some way also at work.

3:19- see on Lk. 23:34.

Peter appeals to Israel to repent and be converted ―that your sins may be blotted out‖ (Acts 3:19)-

quoting the words of Ps. 51:1, where the sin of David with Bathsheba is ‗blotted out‘ after his

repentance and conversion. Each sinner who repents and is baptized and leads the life of ongoing

conversion is therefore living out the pattern of David‘s repentance.

Peter‘s appeal for repentance and conversion was evidently allusive to his own experience of

conversion (Lk. 22:32 cp. Acts 3:19; 9:35). He invited them to seek forgiveness for their denial of

their Lord, just as he had done. He dearly wished them to follow his pattern, and know the grace he

now did. He reminds his sheep of how they are now ―returned‖ (s.w. ‗converted‘) to the Lord Jesus

(1 Pet. 2:25), just as he had been.

God is willing to totally forgive the repentant sinner. He could just forgive men; it is within His

power to do this. But He doesn‘t. He allows His power to do this to be limited by the extent of our

repentance. "If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me

of the evil which I purpose to do unto them" (Jer. 26:3). Likewise ―Repent ye therefore… and be

converted, that your sins may be blotted out... Repent therefore... and pray God, if perhaps the

thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 3:19; 8:22). The ability of God to forgive is

controlled by our repentance ("that... may"). This is used by Peter as the source of appeal for men to

repent. Acts 3:19,20 RV suggests that the repentance of Israel is a precondition for the sending of

the Lord Jesus (see too Rom. 11:15). We hasten the Lord's coming by witnessing to Israel.

3:20- see on Rom. 11:31.

3:21 It was quite possible that the full Messianic Kingdom could have been established in the first

century, depending upon how the Jews responded to Christ's Gospel. All things were ready for the

feast, representing the Kingdom, and the Jewish guests invited- but their rejection of the offer

resulted in a 2,000 year delay while the invitations were pressed home on equally laid back Gentiles

(Mt.22:4). Similarly Peter understood that the Lord must remain in Heaven "until the times of

restitution of all things (cp. Mt.22:4), which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets

since the world began"; but he felt, under inspiration, that "all the prophets... as many as have

spoken (note the emphasis; cp. "all His holy prophets"), have likewise foretold of these days" (Acts

3:21,24), i.e. the days of the first century.

Restoration of all things- this is almost a quotation, certainly an allusion to, the LXX of Mal. 4:6,

talking of how the Elijah ministry would restore the hearts of Israel in preparation for the second

coming of Christ. We have here one of many indications that the Lord Jesus could have returned in

the first century if Israel had repented; Peter‘s ministry to the Jews was therefore to be seen as

potentially an Elijah ministry, just as John the Baptist‘s had been.

3:22- see on Mt. 17:5.

3:24 According to Acts 3:21,24, all the prophets speak of Israel's latter day repentance and the

subsequent return of Messiah.

3:25 Col. 2:11 speaks of circumcision as another type of baptism, in that only the circumcised were

in covenant with God. "The uncircumcised... that soul shall be cut off from his people" (Gen.

17:14). We either ―cut off" the flesh, or God will cut us off. He who would not accept Jesus as

Messiah in Messiah were to be ―destroyed from among the people‖ (Acts 3:25), using a very similar

phrase to the LXX of Gen. 17:14, where the uncircumcised man was to be ―cut off from his people‖.

17

3:26 We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed of Abraham, and the

blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God's turning us away

from our sins are right now being fulfilled in us (Acts 3:27-29). Israel were multiplied as the sand

on the sea shore (2 Sam. 17:11; 1 Kings 4:20), they possessed the gates of their enemies (Dt. 17:2;

18:6)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in

their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.

When Peter speaks of how the Lord Jesus will ‗turn away‘ sinners from their sins (Acts 3:26), he is

using the very word of how the Lord Jesus told him to ―put up again‖ his sword (Mt. 26:52), thereby

turning Peter away from his sin. Peter‘s appeal for repentance and conversion was evidently allusive

to his own experience of conversion (Lk. 22:32 cp. Acts 3:19; 9:35). In this he was following the

pattern of David, who sung his ‗Maschil‘ (teaching) psalms after his forgiveness in order to convert

sinners unto Yahweh (Ps. 51:13). Like Peter, David did so with his sin ever before him, with a

broken and contrite heart (Ps. 51:3,17). He invited them to seek forgiveness for their denial of their

Lord, just as he had done. He dearly wished them to follow his pattern, and know the grace he now

did. See on Acts 2:39.

Peter taught that ―God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him‖ to preach to the Jews (Acts 3:26).

Yet the Lord Jesus personally resurrected and ascended to Heaven, having ‗sent‘ His followers into

the world. Yet because all in Him are so fully His personal witnesses, representative of Him as He is

representative of them, in this way it‘s true to say that the Lord Jesus personally was ―sent‖ into the

world with the Gospel message after His resurrection. And by all means connect this with Peter‘s

difficult words in 1 Pet. 3:19- that by the spirit of Christ, Christ ‗went‘ after His resurrection to

preach to those imprisoned. By our sharing His Spirit, we are Him ‗going‘ and preaching. In this

sense the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). And because Peter was alluding

to the ‗sending‘ of the great commission, he goes on to say that the spiritually imprisoned to whom

we preach are saved by the baptism we minister in fulfilment of the great commission, in the same

way as the ark saved people in Noah‘s day.

After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was sent to preach blessing and forgiveness to Israel (Acts

3:26). But after His resurrection, He sent His men to preach this message. His witness became

expressed through, and therefore limited by, His preachers. When they wilfully misunderstood His

commission as meaning preaching to Jews from all nations, rather than taking the message to the

whole planet literally, His work was in that sense hindered and His intention delayed. Remember

that the Rabbis taught that salvation was impossible for Gentiles: ―For the heathen nations there will

be no redemption‖, so reads the targum on Ex. 21:30. Like us, the early Jewish converts were

influenced by their backgrounds and their limited world views. Until the Lord brought experiences

to bear which, when responded to, taught them what is now the obvious meaning of His words- that

we each have a duty to take the good news of Him to the whole planet.

3:34 Peter uses Scriptures like Ps. 110 and 118 in exactly the same way as he heard the Lord use

them (Acts 3:34 = Mt. 22:44; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7 = Mt. 21:42). A list could be compiled for Peter's

allusions to the Lord as I have for Paul's. It may be that Peter's difficult reference to the spirits in

prison (1 Pet. 3:19) is a reference to Is. 61 in the same way as Christ used it in Lk. 4:18. This point

is meaningless without an appreciation of the extent to which Christ's words featured in the writing

and thought of Peter.

4:2 Not only are there links between Acts and Luke, as if the preaching of the apostles continues the

personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, but often Acts records the preaching

work in language lifted from the other Gospel records too (e.g. Acts 4:2; 5:12-16 = Mt. 4:23).

4:4- see on Acts 2:12.

4:10- see on Acts 10:35,36.

4:12- see on Acts 2:36.

18

According to Acts 4:12, there is no salvation "in any other name"; this is the name "wherein we

must be saved" (RV). And the early chapters of Acts stress this theme of being "in Christ" (Acts

4:2,7,9,10,12 RV); yet all these things that are possible for those "in Him" require us to be baptized

into Him. See on 2 Cor. 5:20.

The message they preached had an exclusive nature to it- it was radical preaching: ‗this is the truth,

and nothing, nothing else on this earth‘. Throughout the Roman empire, there was the concept of

‗religio‘- the gods were thought to bless the empire if the empire worshipped them, and therefore

everyone was expected to participate in the state religion. However, in addition, they were quite free

to practice their own religions as well. But here, Christianity was intolerant. They preached that

there was no other name apart from Jesus through which we might be saved (Acts 4:12)- a direct

and conscious attack upon the ‗religio‘ concept. Christ had to be accepted as Lord in baptism, in

contradistinction to ‗Caesar is Lord‘. A Christian could only serve one of two possible masters. He

had to love one and hate the other. The whole idea of ―the Kingdom of God‖ was revolutionary-

there was to be no other Kingdom spoken of apart from Caesar‘s. But our brethren preached the

Gospel of the Kingdom of God. And those who openly accepted these principles were inevitably

persecuted- expelled from the trade guilds, not worked with, socially shunned, their children

discriminated against.

4:13- see on Jn. 15:27; Jn. 18:27.

Peter was an uneducated fisherman. Who was he to appeal to Jerusalem‘s intelligentsia? He was

mocked as speaking a-grammatos, without correct grammar and basic education even in his own

language (Acts 4:13; AV ―unlearned‖). The way his two letters are so different in written style can

only be because he wrote through a scribe (2 Peter is actually in quite sophisticated Greek). So most

likely he couldn‘t write and could hardly read. So humanly speaking, he was hardly the man for the

job of being the front man for the preaching of the new ecclesia. But not only did his Lord think

differently, but his own depth of experience of God‘s grace and appreciation of the height of the

Lord‘s exaltation became a motivating power to witness which could not be held in. We all know

that the way God prefers to work in the conversion of men is through the personal witness of other

believers. We may use adverts, leaflets, lectures etc. in areas where the Gospel has not yet taken

root, with quite some success. But once a community of believers has been established, the Lord

seems to stop working through these means and witness instead through the personal testimony of

His people. We all know this, and yet for the most part would rather distribute 10,000 tracts than

swing one conversation round to the Truth, or deliberately raise issues of the Gospel with an

unbelieving family member. If we recognize this almost natural reticence which most of us have, it

becomes imperative to find what will motivate us to witness as we ought, a-grammatos or not. The

fact they spoke a-grammatos (4:13 Gk.), without proper grammar, the fact they weren't humanly

speaking the right men for the job... all this meant nothing to them. The height of the Lord's

exaltation and the salvation this enabled just had to be shared with others. See on 2 Pet. 1:5,6.

The credibility of a person depended not so much on them but upon their status and place in society-

thus the witness of women, slaves, children and poor people was discounted. We see it happening in

the way that the preaching of Peter and John was dismissed by the elders because they were of low

social status (Acts 4:13). And yet these were the very types of people which the Lord Jesus used as

His star and key witnesses in the very beginnings of Christianity!

Boldness- They saw their ―boldness‖, and realised they had been with Jesus; for the very same

Greek word is used in description of the Lord‘s ―boldness‖ in witness (Mk. 8:32; Jn. 7:26; 11:14;

16:25,29; 18:20), and on the cross (Col. 2:15).

There was something about Peter and his fellow fishermen which made even the most

unsympathetic make a mental note ("took knowledge") that they had been with Jesus of Nazareth

(Acts 4:13). This was the fulfilment of Jn. 13:35, which using the same root word, teaches that the

19

(Jewish) world would "know" the twelve as the Lord's men if they reflected His love. So there must

have been something in the love that somehow shone between those men as they stood there before

that court, which in a manner impossible to describe, revealed them as Christ's. This same, difficult-

to-describe sense will exude from every one who is the Lord's, in whatever context we are in.

4:16- see on 2 Pet. 1:16-18.

4:20 The basis of the Lord‘s exaltation was the resurrection. When asked why he preached when it

was forbidden, Peter didn‘t shrug and say ‗Well Jesus told me too so I have to‘. His response was:

―We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard‖ (Acts 4:20). It would have been

like saying that, say, sneezing or blinking was a sin. These things are involuntary reactions; and

likewise, preaching is the involuntary reaction to a real belief in the Lord‘s death and resurrection.

His preaching was a ‗hearkening unto God‘, not so much to the specific commission to preach but

rather to the imperative to witness which the Father had placed in the resurrection of His Son. When

arrested for preaching a second time, Peter says the same. I‘d paraphrase the interview like this: Q.

‗Why do you keep preaching when it‘s forbidden?‘. A. ‗Jesus has been raised, and been exalted to

be a Prince and Saviour, ―for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins‖. We have to obey

the wonderful imperative which God has placed in these things: to preach this wondrous message to

those for whom so much has been made possible‘ (Acts 5:28-32). It‘s not that Peter was the most

natural one to stand up and make the witness; he spoke a-grammatos, but it was somehow evident

from his body language that he had ―been with Jesus‖ (Acts 4:13). In rebuking the false teachers, he

likens himself to the dumb ass that spoke in rebuke of Balaam- i.e. he felt compelled to make the

witness to God‘s word which he did, although naturally, without the imperatives we have discussed,

he would be simply a dumb ass. "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard"

(Acts 4:20). He told the Sanhedrin that to make true Christians agree not to preach was simply an

inappropriate suggestion, because " we cannot but speak" out- it was something which went part

and parcel with the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. Peter was not just an illiterate fisherman; so

many of his words and phrasing indicate a thorough familiarity with the Greek Old Testament.

Here, he seems to have Num. 24:13 at the back of his mind; Balaam says that although Balak is

forbidding him to speak, he cannot but speak what God has inspired him with, even if it is intensely

unpopular with those around him. Of course, the Christian preacher is not inspired as Balaam was,

but the principle is the same: it is impossible to keep quiet, because of the very nature of what we

believe and who we are. John had the spirit of Peter when he wrote (in one of his many allusions to

Peter‘s words) that what they had heard and seen, that they declared / witnessed (1 Jn. 1:1,3), as if

hearing and seeing / experiencing Christ inevitably lead to witness.

4:23 The ecclesia was a growing family; the apostles returned ‗to their own‘ when they came out of

court (Acts 4:23 Gk.). Each baptism was and is a birth into our family. Visiting brethren were

gladly received, as one would receive a relative; it was the logical thing to seek out the believers in

a town and stay with them (21:7,17; 27:3; 28:14; 3 Jn. 5).

4:24-30 The early brethren appropriated prophecies of Jesus personally to themselves as they

witnessed to Him (Acts 4:24-30; 13:5,40). The same Greek words are also used in Luke and Acts

about the work of Jesus and those of the apostles later; and also, the same original words are used

concerning the deeds of the apostles in the ministry of Jesus, and their deeds in Acts. Thus an

impression is given that the ecclesia‘s witness after the resurrection was and is a continuation of the

witness of the 12 men who walked around Galilee with Jesus. He didn‘t come to start a formalised

religion; as groups of believers grew, the Holy Spirit guided them to have systems of leadership and

organization, but the essence is that we too are personally following the Lamb of God as He walked

around Galilee, hearing His words, seeing His ways, and following afar off to Golgotha carrying

His cross.

4:24-31 One major obstacle for Jewish minds would have been their perception that prayer and

worship were to be carried out in the Jerusalem temple. This would have been a particular barrier

20

for the many Jews in Jerusalem who converted to Christ. Whilst initially it appears the believers did

attend the temple services, it is also significant that Acts repeatedly brings out the parallels between

prayers and worship performed in the temple, and those performed in the ordinary homes of

believers. Some passages about worship in the temple appear to be in parallel with others about such

worship in homes. Luke seems to emphasize how important was the home as a place for prayer.

Cornelius is presented as praying at home at the ninth hour, which was the hour of temple prayer

(Acts 10:3,30). The prayer of Acts 4:24-31 speaks of the God who made heaven and earth and the

sea and everything in it- a classic Jewish liturgy used in the temple prayers. The point being, such

prayers didn‘t have to be made in the temple through the Jewish priests. Further, there is extra-

Biblical evidence (from Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian) that the third, sixth and ninth hours were

the times for prayer amongst the early Christians- but these were the very hours of prayer in the

temple! This would have been so hard to accept to the Jewish mind- that your own humble home

[hence Luke stresses meetings and prayers in homes so much] was the house of God. It had been so

drummed into the Jewish mind that the temple was ―the house of prayer‖ (Is. 56:7; 60:7 LXX)- but

now they were faced with the wonderful reality that their own home was that house of prayer. Only

those brave enough to really reach out for a personal relationship with the God of Heaven would

have risen up to this challenging idea. And yet the very height and thrill of the challenge inspired so

many to do so.

4:25 Ps. 2:1,2, a prophecy about opposition to Jesus personally, is appropriated to those who preach

Him, because they are in Him (Acts 4:25,26).

4:26- see on Acts 9:15.

Both Jew and Gentile were gathered together against the Lord (God) and His Christ on the cross

(Acts 4:26). Peter thus makes a connection between the Father and Son on the cross. Those who

reproached Jesus there reproached the Father (Ps. 69:9).

The cross of Christ is the gathering point for His people (see on Jn. 12:32; 17:21). But it is also

associated with the gathering together of all God's enemies (Acts 4:26). Even Herod and Pilate were

made friends at that time (Luke 23:12). The cross divides men into two united camps; they are

gathered together by it, either in the Lord's cause, or against Him. The crucifixion was the judgment

seat for this world (Jn. 12:31). Likewise the day of judgment will be a gathering together, either

against the Lord (Rev. 16:16; 19:19), unto condemnation (Jn. 15:6); or into the barn of His salvation

(Mt. 13:30). And likewise, in anticipation of the judgment, the breaking of bread is a "gathering

together" either to condemnation or salvation (1 Cor. 11).

4:29 They spoke of themselves as God‘s servants in the same breath as they speak of Jesus as being

His Servant (Acts 4:29,30). They realized that all that was true of the Servant was true of them too.

When the disciples prayed ―Look upon their threatenings…‖ (Acts 4:29 RV), they were surely

inspired by the praying of Hezekiah in 2 Kings 19:16 using the same words. And these examples

ought to specifically fire our prayer life, too.

4:30- see on Mt. 14:30 and 31; Acts 3:7.

4:32- see on Acts 2:44.

Sitting there in Babylonian captivity, God offered His people a new covenant (Ez. 11:19,20,25 cp.

Heb. 10:16); they could have one mind between each other, and a heart of flesh. But Israel would

not, and it was only accepted by those who turned to Jesus Christ. Their being of ―one heart‖ after

baptism (Acts 4:32) was a direct result of their acceptance of this same new covenant which Judah

had rejected. In the hearing of offer of the new covenant, we are essentially in the position of those

of the captivity, hearing Ezekiel‘s words, and deciding whether or not to remain in cushy Babylon,

or make a painful and humanly uncertain aliyah to Zion.

21

The early brethren in Jerusalem had the attitude that nothing they possessed was really theirs (Acts

4:32), and therefore as a result of this, many sold what superfluous things they had. But those who

didn't, we later learn, had their possessions and lands stolen during the persecution of the Hebrew

believers that soon followed (Acts 11:19 cp. Heb. 10:32-34). God took back what He had lent them,

even before their death. Their realization that they owned nothing was not just a temporary height of

enthusiasm; they appreciated a principle which was true before, then and now. That principle

applies today just as much as it did then.

In the early church, ―no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own‖ (Acts

4:32). I wonder- and maybe I‘m clutching at straws and justifying us all- if the emphasis is upon the

word ―said‖. Their attitude was that they didn‘t personally possess anything. As Paul wrote to the

Corinthians, to buy and sell and deal in this world, as if we didn‘t really buy anything or gain a

thing, as if it‘s all somehow performed by us as in a disconnected dream. See on Lk. 14:33.

4:33 The early brethren had seen and known Jesus, despised, hated, dropping from exhaustion in

the boat, slumping dehydrated at a well, covered in blood and spittle, mocked in naked shame. And

now they knew that He had risen, that He had been exalted to God's right hand so as to make the

salvation of men possible, and surely going to return. They spoke this out, because they knew Him.

―With great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus‖ (Acts 4:33

RV). And yet through the Gospels and with the eye of faith, we know Him too. And this must be the

basis for our witness.

4:35- see on Jn. 6:11.

4:36 An example of the Biblical record going along with the incorrect perceptions of faithful men is

to be found in the way the apostles nicknamed Joseph as ‗Barnabas‘ ―under the impression,

apparently, that it meant ‗son of consolation‘ [Acts 4:36]. On etymological grounds that has proved

hard to justify, and the name is now generally recognized to… mean ‗son of Nabu‘‖. Yet the record

‗goes along‘ with their misunderstanding. In addition to this, there is a huge imputation of

righteousness to human beings, reflected right through Scripture. God sought them, the essence of

their hearts, and was prepared to overlook much ignorance and misunderstanding along the way.

Consider how good king Josiah is described as always doing what was right before God, not turning

aside to the right nor left- even though it was not until the 18th year of his reign that he even

discovered parts of God‘s law, which he had been ignorant of until then, because the scroll

containing them had been temporarily lost (2 Kings 22:2,11).

5:3 Peter could plead with men, both in and out of the Faith, with a credibility that lay in his ready

acceptance of his failures, and his evident acceptance of his Lord‘s gracious forgiveness and

teaching. Consider how he tells Ananias that Satan has filled his heart (Acts 5:3), alluding to what

everyone full well knew: that Satan had desired to have him too, and in the denials he had pretty

well capitulated (Lk. 22:31,32). Peter‘s disciplining of Ananias, so soon after his own deference to

the pressures of Satan as opposed to those of the Lord, would have been done surely in subdued,

saddened and introspective tones.

5:4 When they sold their property, the Holy Spirit‘s comment in Acts 5:4 was that the money was

―their own‖ and ―under their own power‖ [Gk. exousia]. They could have chosen to give all or part

of that money to God. It was theirs and not God‘s, the implication was. This is a startling insight.

What wealth we have has been genuinely entrusted to us by the Lord, and in that sense it is indeed

‗ours‘, under our power. Yet we are to realize that of course as those under the sphere of God‘s

rulership / Kingdom, we are under His ‗exousia‘. Absolutely all power of exousia in any part of

Heaven or earth has now been given to the Lord Jesus (Mt. 28:18; Jn. 17:2; Col. 2:10). And yet He

has given ―authority‖ or exousia to us His servants, and will judge us on His return as to how we

have used this (Mk. 13:34; Jn. 1:12). We need to make this connection- that although He has

22

delegated to us wealth, and placed it under our power or exousia, if we are truly part of His

Kingdom, we are to give back the exousia or power / authority over our wealth to Him.

Acts 5:3 provides an example of the connection between the Devil and our sins. Peter says to

Ananias: ―Why has Satan filled your heart?‖ Then in verse 4 Peter says ―Why have you conceived

this thing in your heart?‖ Conceiving something bad within our heart is the same as Satan filling

our heart. If we ourselves conceive something, e.g. a sinful plan, then it begins inside us. Note that

when Peter speaks of how Ananias has ―conceived this thing in your heart‖ he‘s alluding to the

LXX of Esther 7:5, where the wicked Haman is described as one ―whose heart hath filled him‖ to

abuse God‘s people (see RV). Note in passing that the LXX of Esther 7:4 speaks of Haman as ho

diabolos [with the definite article] – a mere man is called ―the Satan‖. It‘s been suggested that

‗Satan filling the heart‘ was a common phrase used in the first century to excuse human sin; and

Peter is deconstructing it by using the phrase and then defining more precisely what it refers to –

conceiving sin in our heart, our own heart filling itself with sin.

5:14 Acts 5:14 AV says that converts were added ―to the Lord‖ whereas the RVmg. speaks of them

being added ―to them‖, i.e. the believers who comprised the body of Jesus. Baptism is not only entry

into covenant relationship with the Father and His Son; it is also baptism into the body of Christ, i.e.

the body of believers (1 Cor. 12:13). This is where self baptism shouldn't be used too liberally. Thus

the record in Acts describes baptisms as believers being "added" to the body of believers (Acts

2:41,47); but also as them being "added" (s.w.) to the Lord Jesus (5:14; 11:24). It is therefore

appropriate that there are other members of the body of Christ present at the baptism; baptism is

entry into relationship with the community of believers, as well as into a personal relationship with

Christ.

The harder side of the Father and the Lord Jesus actually serves as an attraction to the serious

believer. The lifted up Jesus draws men unto Him. When Ananias and Sapphira were slain by the

Lord, fear came upon "as many as heard these things". Many would have thought His attitude hard;

this man and woman had sold their property and given some of it (a fair percentage, probably, to

make it look realistic) to the Lord's cause. And then He slew them. But just afterwards, "believers

were the more added to the Lord" (Acts 5:12,14). The Lord's harder side didn't turn men away from

Him; rather did it bring them to Him. And so the demands and terror of the preaching of the cross

did likewise. The balance between His utter grace, the way (e.g.) He marvelled at men's puny faith,

and His harder side, is what makes His character so utterly magnetic and charismatic in the ultimate

sense. Think of how He beheld the rich man and loved Him, and yet at the same time was

purposefully demanding: He told Him to sell all He had and give it to beggars. Not to the work of

the ministry, but to beggars, many of whom one would rightly be cynical of helping. It was a large

demand, the Lord didn't make it to everyone, and He knew He was touching the man's weakest

point. If the Lord had asked that the man's wealth be given to Him, he may have agreed. But to

beggars... And yet the Lord made this heavy demand with a deep love for the man.

5:15,16- see on Mt. 14:30.

5:21 The main priestly duty was to teach God's word to the people. A whole string of texts make

this point: Dt. 24:8; 2 Kings 17:27; 2 Chron. 15:3; Neh. 8:9; Mic. 3:11. Note too the common

partnership between priests and prophets. Because of their role as teachers, it is understandable that

the anger of the first century priesthood was always associated with Christ and the apostles teaching

the people, in the belief that they were a new priesthood: Mt. 21:33; Lk. 19:47; 20:1; Acts 5:21. The

existing priests felt that their role was being challenged.

5:24 Consider how the disciples responded to the High Priest rebuking them for preaching; he

claimed that they intended to bring the blood of Jesus upon them (Acts 5:24). The obvious, logical

debating point would have been to say: ‗But you were the very ones who shouted out ‗His blood be

upon us!!‘ just a few weeks ago!‘. But, Peter didn‘t say this. He didn‘t even allude to their obvious

23

self-contradiction. Instead he positively went on to point out that a real forgiveness was possible

because Jesus was now resurrected. And the point we can take from this is that true witness is not

necessarily about pointing out to the other guy his self-contradictions, the logical weakness of his

position… it‘s not about winning a debate, but rather about bringing people to meaningful

repentance and transformation.

5:26- see on Jn. 12:13.

5:28-32- see on Acts 4:20. His resurrection is an imperative to preach. When Peter is asked why he

continues preaching when it is forbidden, he responds by saying that he is obeying God‘s command,

in that Christ had been raised (Acts 5:29-32). There was no specific command from God to witness

(although there was from Christ); from the structure of Peter‘s argument he is surely saying that the

fact God raised Christ is de facto a command from God to witness to it which must be obeyed. The

resurrection of Jesus is itself the command to preach. Yet reading carefully, Peter says that he is a

witness not only of the resurrection, but of the fact that Jesus is now at God's right hand and from

that position of power has enabled forgiveness. How could Peter be a witness to that? For he hadn't

been up to Heaven to check. Quite simply, he knew the extent of his own forgiveness. And so he

therefore knew that truly, Jesus had ascended and was there in a position of influence upon

Almighty God, to enable forgiveness. His own cleansed conscience was the proof that his belief in

the Lord's ascension was belief in something true. And yet we ask: does our belief that Christ

ascended really have this effect upon us?

5:30 Earlier, Peter had thought that following Christ to the end could be achieved in a quick,

dramatic burst of zeal- for surely his desire to ―smite with the sword‖ in Gethsemane was almost

suicidal, and yet by doing so he thought that he would fulfil his promise to lay down his life for

Christ‘s sake. He learnt the lesson, that crucifixion is a way of life rather than just dramatic death;

for he said that the Jews had slain Christ and hung Him on a tree (Acts 5:30; 10:39). This seems

strange- that they should have killed Him and then hung Him on the tree. Peter has in mind the

practice of hanging an already dead criminal on a tree as a warning (Dt. 21:23). Paul appears to

make the same mistake in Gal. 3:13, where he too says that the lifting up of Christ on the cross was

typified by the lifting up of the already dead body of a criminal. Christ was not dead when He was

lifted up- physically. But first Peter and then Paul came to understand that His death was actually in

His way of life- so that He was as good as dead when lifted up. He was the dead bronze snake of the

wilderness; the flesh had been put to death by a daily life of crucifixion.

The Jews "slew (Jesus) and hanged (him) on a tree" (Acts 5:30). There seems to be a distinction

here; as if the 'slaying' was an ongoing process in His ministry, crowned by the final hanging on the

tree. Paul speaks similarly in Galatians; as if the body was already dead when it was lifted up on the

tree; for he quotes the Mosaic law regarding the body of a dead criminal being displayed on a tree as

if it was descriptive of the Lord‘s death (Gal. 3:13 cp. Dt. 21:23). The veil symbolized the flesh of

the Lord; and yet in it was woven scarlet, a symbol of His blood and sacrifice (Ex. 27:16), which

permeated His mortal life. The lesson is that the cross is a daily way of life. The Lord taught this

when He asked us to take up the cross daily: to live each day in the exercise of the same principles

which He lived and died by. Let's not see spiritual life as a survival of a few crises, as and when

they present themselves. It's a way of life, and the principles which lead us to the little victories

(when we scald ourselves with hot water, when we dirty a newly washed shirt...) will give us the

greater ones also, when (e.g.) we stand before a tribunal, or face death in whatever form.

5:31- see on Acts 2:33; 10:35,36.

Man cannot truly know God and be passive to that knowledge; he must somehow respond to the

God he sees so abundantly revealed to him. And so it is with an appreciation of the height and

nature of the exaltation of the man Christ Jesus. This motivates to repentance and conversion, and

therefore the man who has himself been converted by it will glory in it, and hold it up to others as

24

the motive power of their salvation too. Acts 5:31 is the clearest example: ―Him (Jesus) hath God

exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and

forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things‖- in the sense that Peter himself was a

witness to the repentance and forgiveness brought about by God‘s resurrection and exaltation of His

Son. Earlier Peter had preached Jesus of Nazareth as ―made…both Lord and Christ‖, and when they

heard this, when he reached this climax of his speech in declaring that Jesus was now made kurios,

the Greek word that would be used to translate Yahweh, then they were pricked in their heart and

repented and desired association with Him in baptism (Acts 2:36-38). Later he boldly declared:

―Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among

men [i.e. no other name given to any man as this Name was given to Jesus], whereby we must be

saved‖ (Acts 4:12). Peter had once struggled with the teaching of the Lord that whoever humbled

himself would be exalted (Lk. 14:11). Now he joyfully preached the height of the Lord‘s exaltation,

knowing that by so doing he was testifying to the depth of His humility in His life. Now he valued

and appreciated that humility (his allusions to the Lord‘s washing of feel in his letters is further

proof of this).

The early believers spoke constantly in their preaching of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ

(Acts 2:21,23; 3:13-15; 5:30,31). The logical objection to their preaching a risen Jesus of Nazareth

was: ‗But He‘s dead! We saw His body! Where is He? Show Him to us!‘. And their response, as

ours, was to say: ‗I am the witness, so is my brother here, and my sister there. We are the witnesses

that He is alive. If you see us, you see Him risen and living through us‘. In this spirit, we beseech

men in Christ‘s stead. Paul in Galatians 2:20 echoes this idea: " I have been crucified with Christ:

the life I now live is not my life, but the life which Christ lives in me‖. The spirit of the risen Christ

lived out in our lives is the witness of His resurrection. We are Him to this world. The cross too was

something which shone out of their lives and words. They sought to convict men of their

desperation, the urgency of their position before God, the compelling nature of the cross, that they

were serious sinners; that a man cannot behold the cross and be unresponsive, but rather must

appropriate that work and gift to himself through baptism. The urgent appeal for repentance was

quite a feature of their witness (2:38; 5:31; 7:51; 11:18; 17:30; 18:18; 20:21; 26:20; Heb. 6:1). May

I suggest there needs to be a greater stress on repentance in our preaching, 20 centuries later.

Our Lord ascended to Heaven so that opportunity of repentance might be given to Israel (Acts

5:31), and so that He might give the Holy Spirit gifts to men (Eph.4:8-13 cp. John 14-16 explaining

how Jesus departed in order to receive the Comforter). It follows that the gifts of the Holy Spirit

were given largely in order to convince Israel of the Gospel; and so too around the period of the

second coming?

5:32 Luke concludes by recording how the Lord reminded His men that they were ―witnesses‖

(24:48); and throughout Acts, they repeatedly describe themselves as witnesses to Him (Acts 1:8,22;

2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39,41; 13:31; 22:15,20; 26:16). This is quite some emphasis. This Christ-

centredness should also fill our self-perception; that we are witnesses to the Lord out of our own

personal experience of Him. They were witnesses that Christ is on God‘s right hand, that He really

is a Saviour and source of forgiveness (5:32); because they were self-evidently results of that

forgiveness and that salvation. They couldn‘t be ‗witnesses‘ to those things in any legal, concrete

way; for apart from them and their very beings, there was no literal evidence. They hadn‘t been to

Heaven and seen Him; they had no document that said they were forgiven. They were the witnesses

in themselves. This even went to the extent of the Acts record saying that converts were both added

to the ecclesia, and also added to Christ. He was His ecclesia; they were, and we are, His body in

this world.

We are ―witnesses [on account of our being] in him‖ (Acts 5:32 RVmg.). We are His epistle to men

and women; His words of expression consist in our lives and characters (2 Cor. 3:3).

25

5:41 There are about 70 references to there being joy of faith amongst the early brethren. It was

undoubtedly a characteristic of the community, despite the moral and doctrinal failures amongst

them, the turning back to the world, the physical hardship of life, and direct persecution from the

authorities. There was a joy of faith in conversion and in beholding it (Acts 2:41,46; 3:8; 5:41; 8:8;

13:52; 15:3; 1 Thess. 1:6). Letters to new converts like the Philippians reflect this theme of joy,

even though it was written from prison. Paul and Silas could sing in prison. The earlier brethren

rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Jesus‘ sake (Acts 5:41). Paul rejoiced

daily in the fact the Corinthians had been baptized (1 Cor. 15:31). Many a photo taken at baptism

reflects this same joy amongst us today. Sower and reaper rejoice together (Jn. 4:36). To hold on to

the Truth was described as holding on to the rejoicing of the hope unto the end (Heb. 3:6).

5:42- see on Acts 2:46.

6 An extended example of the repetition in Biblical narratives is to be found in the remarkable

parallels between the sufferings of Stephen and the Lord Jesus:

The Lord Jesus

Acts 2:22

Luke 4:22

Mark 12:13

Luke 20:20

Matthew 26:59

Matthew 26:61

Matthew 26:65

Mark 15:20

Mark 14:62

Stephen

Acts 6:8

Acts 6:10

Acts 6:11

Acts 6:12

Acts 6:13

Acts 6:14

Acts 6:11

Acts 7:57,58

Acts 7:56

6:1 Luke records how the converts were repeatedly ―multiplied‖ (6:1,7; 9:31; 12:24), using the very

word for the ‗multiplying‘ of Abraham‘s seed as the stars (7:17; Heb. 6:14; 11:12). Every baptism

he saw as the triumphant fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, even though many of those who

‗multiplied‘ later turned away.

There were dirty politics in the church. The Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking Jews

within the ecclesia started arguing over welfare payments in Acts 6. It was the old tension- the

liberals against the orthodox, with the orthodox unwilling to give much of the welfare collection to

those they perceived as more liberal. This squabble was tackled by Stephen, and the record then

goes on to describe his murder, almost implying that it was Judaist Christians within the synagogues

who set him up for this. After all, there was big money involved- Jews were used to paying 10 or

20% of their wealth to the temple, and if this was now going to the ecclesia, with thousands

baptized, there could well have arisen a power struggle over who controlled it. It could well be that

the division between Paul and John Mark was over this matter; after they had baptized the first

Gentile in Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, John Mark went back to the Jerusalem ecclesia (Acts 13:13).

Acts 15:38 RV speaks of how he ―withdrew from them from Pamphylia‖, hinting at spiritual

reasons for his withdrawal. It must also be remembered that Christianity was a new, unregistered

religion in the Roman empire, increasingly subject to persecution and discrimination. Judaism was

registered and tolerated. It was so much easier to remain under the synagogue umbrella, to deny the

radical demands of the Lord Jesus, and to accept Him half-heartedly, in Name but not in reality.

The Jerusalem ecclesia is an example of how rich and poor were united together. There were clearly

wealthy members- Simon of Cyrene owned a farm (Mk. 15:21). Barnabas sold lands (Acts 4:36).

26

Ananias and Sapphira had land. And then there were the middle class. Mary owned a house in

Jerusalem and had at least one servant (Acts 12:12-17). Levi was a tax collector wealthy enough to

throw a large banquet, implying he had a large home (Mk. 2:13-17). James and John had a fishing

business in Galilee that employed day labourers. And then there were the poor. The Lord Jesus and

the apostles healed the beggars and diseased, who presumably became members of the church. Acts

6:1; 2:44; 4:34 imply there were large numbers of very poor people in the church. James the Lord‘s

brother was presumably a carpenter, poor like the Lord was. And yet he was the leader of the early

church. Unlike many other religious movements, early Christianity drew its members from right

across society; and one of the poorest was their leading light! This unity, as we have so often said,

would have been their biggest single advertisement. And yet the Acts record artlessly says so little

about social or economic class distinctions- precisely because they were not important. Any

uninspired writer would have made great capital of this phenomenal feature of the early church.

Acts 6:1 makes the point that aid to the poor widows was cut off or impaired, because the other

believers were arguing amongst themselves. It would appear that the Hebrew Christians went to the

temple daily (Acts 2:46), whereas the Greek widows wouldn't have done (Acts 7:48,49). So the

common theological disagreement about how far the Jewish Law should influence Christian life-

resulted in old and needy ladies in the ecclesia suffering.

The early elders of the Christian church decided that they were spending too much time on practical

matters with the result that they weren't finding enough time for prayer. And so they made a major

re-arrangement to enable them to devote more time to prayer (Acts 6:1-4).

6:3 James 1:27 defines the essence of Christianity as ‗visiting‘ the fatherless and widows. But the

Greek word occurs also in Acts 6:3, translated ‗to look / search out‘. We are to actually search out

others‘ needs, go to them, imagine what they might be in need of and supply it- rather than waiting

to be confronted by those needs. It was of course exactly in this sense that God ‗visited‘ us in the

gift of His Son.

6:4 The twelve gave themselves continually to "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4); using a phrase

used in contemporary literature to describe how the synagogue minister made pupils memorize

Scripture texts. See on Acts 20:35.

6:4 So important was prayer in the early community that the seven deacons had to make

arrangements for the practical running of the ecclesia so that they could give themselves more time

for prayer (Acts 6:4); prayerfulness was more important than petty administration. Husbands and

wives abstained from sex for short periods so as to more powerfully pray individually (1 Cor. 7:5).

6:7- see on Mt. 8:4.

Acts 7:3 says that when Abram was in Ur, he was told "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy

kindred" - pointedly omitting mention of "thy father's house" . Gen. 12:1 records that the Lord had

told Abram to leave his country, kindred and his father's house, but goes on to say that "So Abram

departed" from Haran " as the Lord had spoken unto him" (Gen.12:4). The implication is that the

command which he was given in Ur, was repeated to him in Haran, with the additional information

that he must now also leave "thy father's house".

Saul, Paul And Stephen

As well as John the Baptist, it would seem that Stephen likewise had a deep impact upon Paul.

Stephen‘s condemnation had been because he had reminded the Jews of the fact ―Heaven is my

throne and earth is my footstool‖ and therefore the temple was not ultimately relevant (Acts

7:48,49). Yet only a few brief years later, Paul was using the very same words and logic on Mars

Hill in Athens. It has been observed that Hebrews particularly has enough conscious points of

contact with Stephen‘s words that it would seem that the author was very familiar with Stephen‘s

words:

27

Acts [Stephen] Hebrews

7:2,55 1:1-3; 2:10

7:2-5 11:8

7:2 11:1-31

7:9-36 3:16; 11:21,22

7:38 11:1-29 cf. 4:1-3

7:46 9:11,24 cp. Is. 66:1,2

7:39-43,52 3:7-12

6:14 ch. 1-6

Stephen‘s speech (and perhaps other, unrecorded words of Stephen) became imprinted upon Paul‘s

mind and consciousness. In writing to the brethren he had once persecuted, both consciously and

unconsciously Paul was reflecting Stephen‘s words. A clear example is found in the way Stephen

describes Israel as ―thrusting‖ Moses away from them (Acts 7:39); and Paul is the only other person

in the New Testament to use this same Greek word- to describe how although Israel thrust God

away from them, yet God did not thrust [AV ―cast away‖] His people from Himself (Rom. 11:1,2).

The even unconscious influence of Stephen upon Paul is reflected in the way he speaks of himself

as ―born…brought up…educated‖ (Acts 22:2,3)- using the very terms Stephen uses in Acts 7 about

Moses.

Paul‘s relationship with Stephen becomes even more acute when we reflect upon how Stephen says

that Israel were taken into judgment ―to Babylon‖ (Acts 7:43). He is quoting here from Amos 5:26,

which in both the LXX and Masoretic text says that Israel were to go ―to Damascus‖. Why does

Stephen purposefully change ―Damascus‖ to ―Babylon‖? Was it not because he knew there were

many Christians in Damascus, and he didn‘t want to speak of ‗going to Damascus‘ as a figure for

condemnation? And yet straight afterwards we are reading that Saul ‗went to Damascus‘ to

persecute and kill the Christians there. It‘s as if Saul was so infuriated by Stephen‘s subtle change

that he wanted to prove him wrong; he would ‗go to Damascus‘ and not be condemned, rather he

would condemn the Christians there, and make it their place of judgment. This suggestion may

seem far fetched. But we have to remember the Pharisaic way of reasoning and thinking. Every

phrase of Scripture was so valuable to them, and major life decisions would be made over one

nuance of the text or interpretation of it. No wonder that in later life, Paul alludes to his dear friend

Stephen so much. What a joy it will be to see them meet up in the Kingdom.

7:2 In his famous final speech, Stephen evidently had humming in his mind the theme of the glory

of God. He begins by saying that ―The God of glory appeared…‖ (Acts 7:2). God heard that speech,

and read his mind. And responded in an appropriate way- for to give Stephen final strength to face

death, God made His glory appear to Stephen (Acts 7:55). And so it can be for us- although it all

depends what we have humming in our hearts.

7:4 According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was 23 years in Haran. "From thence...God removed

him into (Canaan)" (Acts 7:4 R.V.). But if God had forced him to be "removed‖, Abram's response

to the promises would not be held up for us as the great example of faith which it is. The call of

Abram is an essay in partial response being confirmed by God. God removed him through repeating

the promises to Abram in Haran, and the providential fact that Terah died there. The fact that Abram

"dwelt" in Haran, despite his call to leave, with his kindred and father's house shows a slow reaction

to the command to leave those things and go to the unknown land, which by now Abram must have

guessed was Canaan- or at least, he would have realized that Canaan was en route to it.

7:13 Two of the greatest types of the Lord's mediatory work are Esther and Joseph. Esther was

perhaps ashamed to reveal that she was a Jewess because of her people's behaviour, but given their

28

desperate need she did reveal it in order to plead with the King for their salvation. And only when

Joseph really had to use his influence to save his brethren did ―Joseph's race become manifest unto

Pharaoh" (Acts 7:13 RV). Does the Lord experience the same sort of embarassment mixed with an

urgent sense of our desperation, in His present mediation for us?

The Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth is hard to explicitly prove from the Old Testament, without

recourse to typology. Even Isaiah 53 describes the sufferings of Hezekiah, who was typical of Jesus.

Thus Stephen‘s defence of his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus rests largely on typology – e.g. the

fact that Joseph/Jesus was rejected by his brethren at first (Acts 7:13).

7:17 Acts 7:17 speaks of ―the time of the promise‖ drawing near- putting ‗the promise‘ for ‗the

fulillment of the promise‘, so sure are God‘s promises of fulfillment.

The promises to Abraham received their major primary fulfilment at the Exodus (Acts 7:17). Seeing

that their ultimate fulfilment will be at the second coming, it follows that the deliverance of Israel

from Egypt was typical of this.

7:21- see on Ez. 16:5

7:22 "I am not eloquent (mg. a man of words)...I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (Ex.

4:10); this is how Moses felt he would be perceived, although actually he was formally quite fluent

when in the court of Pharaoh (Acts 7:22). Paul would have remembered Stephen saying how Moses

was formerly full of worldly wisdom and "mighty in words". Paul felt that he too had been through

Moses' experience- once mighty in words as the rising star of the Jewish world, but now like Moses

he had left all that behind in order to try to save a new Israel from Judaism and paganism.

Paul says he was "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" by Gamaliel,

receiving the highest wisdom possible in the Jewish world; but he uses the same word as Stephen in

Acts 7:22, describing how Moses was " learned" in all the wisdom of Egypt.

7:23- see on Heb. 11:24.

7:23 It is worth trying to visualize the scene when Moses was ―full forty years old‖ (Acts 7:23). It

would make a fine movie. The Greek phrase could refer to Moses‘ birthday, and one is tempted to

speculate that it had been arranged that when Moses was 40, he would become Pharaoh. Heb. 11:24

says that he refused and chose- the Greek tense implying a one off choice- to suffer affliction with

God‘s people. It is tempting to imagine Moses at the ceremony when he should have been declared

as Pharaoh, the most powerful man in his world… standing up and saying, to a suddenly hushed

audience, voice cracking with shame and stress and yet some sort of proud relief that he was doing

the right thing: ―I, whom you know in Egyptian as Meses, am Moshe, yes, Moshe the Jew; and I

decline to be Pharaoh‖. Imagine his foster mother‘s pain and anger. And then in the end, the

wonderful honour would have been given to another man, who became Pharaoh. Perhaps he or his

son was the one to whom Moses was to come, 40 years later. After a nervous breakdown, stuttering,

speaking with a thick accent, clearly having forgotten Egyptian… walking through the mansions of

glory, along the corridors of power, to meet that man, to whom he had given the throne 40 years

earlier.

7:25 Moses "supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver

them"; but God told Moses at the bush: "I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt....". Moses had

yet to learn the meaning of God manifestation through men- Ex. 3:20 cp. Acts 7:25.

7:26 God sent Moses to be their saviour, pointing forward to His sending of the Lord Jesus to

redeem us. Moses came to Israel and "shewed (Greek 'optomai') himself" to them (Acts 7:26). Yet

'optomai' really means to gaze at, to watch a spectacle. He came to his people, and gazed at them as

they fought among themselves, spiritually and emotionally destroyed by the oppression of Egypt.

He invited them to likewise gaze upon him as their saviour. This surely prefigures our Lord's

consideration of our sinful state. As he grew up in Nazareth he would have thought on this a lot.

29

7:27 Israel‘s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to

redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers ―strove against Moses... when they strove against

Yahweh‖ (Num. 26:9 cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they

murmured against Yahweh (Ex. 16:2,7; Num. 17:5; 21:5). They thrust Moses away from them (Acts

7:27,39) - yet the same word is used in Rom. 11:2 concerning how God still has not cast away

Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who

manifested Him.

7:31 wondered- The double repetition "Moses, Moses" in Ex. 3:4 may be some kind of rebuke. "I

have" seen the affliction of Israel could suggest that Moses felt God was not sensitive to the pain of

His children; he had been living for 40 years feeling forgotten by God . Moses "wondered" at what

he saw and heard at the burning bush (Acts 7:31)- a Greek word which is often used in a negative

sense concerning people lacking faith and insight when they should have had it.

7:35 The loneliness of Moses as a type of Christ in showing this kind of love must surely represent

that of our Lord. They went to a height which was generally beyond the appreciation of the men

among whom they lived. The Spirit seems to highlight the loneliness of Moses by saying that at the

same time as Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, Israel refused him (the same

Greek word is used; Heb. 11:24; Acts 7:35). He was rejected by both the world and God's people:

for 40 long years. As Israel envied Moses for spiritual reasons (Ps. 106:16; Acts 7:9), so they did

Christ (Mt. 27:18), after the pattern of the brothers' spiritual envy of Joseph (Gen. 37:11). Spiritual

envy leading to persecution is quite a common feature in Biblical history (Job, Jeremiah, Paul...).

And it isn't absent from the Christian experience either.

Israel hated him, they thrust him from them (Acts 7:39); due to their provocation he failed to enter

the land. He had done so much for them, yet they bitterly rejected him- "this Moses", as they called

him (Ex. 32:1,23 cp. Acts 7:35). But when God wanted to destroy them and make of Moses a great

nation, he pleaded for them with such intensity that he achieved what few prayerful men have: a

change (not just a delay in outworking) in God's categorically stated intention.

Stephen in Acts 7 brings out the sheer grace of God in redeeming Israel. Although Israel rejected

Moses as their ruler and deliverer, "the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer" (Acts 7:35).

They didn't want to be saved from Egypt through Moses, and yet God did save them from Egypt

through Moses. Israel at that time were exactly like us; while we were yet sinners, Christ died for

us, we were redeemed in prospect from a world we didn't want to leave. We were saved- and are

saved- almost in spite of ourselves. That we were predestined to such great salvation is is one of

redemption's finest mysteries.

7:36 "He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs... in the wilderness forty

years"; yet Ex.12:41; 33:1 say that the bringing out of Israel was at the Red Sea. These two

'bringings out' of Egypt (the flesh) are experienced by us, firstly at baptism, and secondly in actually

entering the Kingdom at the second coming. Our bringing out from the Kingdom of darkness into

the sphere of God's rulership only occurs in prospect at baptism and must be confirmed at the end of

our wilderness wandering. See on 1 Pet. 2:10.

7:38 We find Moses as a type of Christ also presented as representative of Israel, and therefore able

to completely sympathise with them in their physical afflictions and spiritual weaknesses. Thus the

Spirit says (in the context of presenting Moses as a type of Christ) that Moses was "in (not "with")

the ecclesia in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), stressing the way in which he was in their midst rather

than distanced from them.

Acts 7:38 (especially the Diaglott translation) speaks as if the Angel was physically present with

Moses on the journey: "he (Moses) was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake

to him in the Mount Sina and with our fathers". In passing, this implies that it was the same Angel

30

(Michael) who gave the promises to Abraham, who gave the Law, and who went with them through

the wilderness. Truly He is the Angel connected with Israel! See on Ps. 78:60

7:39 Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ.

At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews

"thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (Acts 7:27,35,39). This

suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old

Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from Acts 7:39 that

after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in

that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment.

They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their

salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The

record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. Ex. 15:24;

17:2,3; 32:1 NIV; Num. 16:41 NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader,

bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (Num.

16:13,14)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to

lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of

their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom.

7:42 On their journey to Canaan, the Israelites worshipped idols. Because of this, "God turned, and

gave them up (over) to worship the host of heaven... I gave them up to the hardness of their hearts"

(Acts 7:42; Ps. 81:12 AVmg.). God reached a stage where He actually encouraged Israel to worship

idols; He confirmed them in their rejection of Him. And throughout their history, He encouraged

them in their idolatry (Ez. 20:39; Am. 4:4).

7:43 A classic example of Angelic co-operation is found in the account of the first Passover. Ex.

12:23 says that the Passover Angel would "pass (hover) over the door and will not suffer the

destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you". 'The destroyer' refers to an Angel- Ps. 78

speaks of the "Angels of evil" who brought the plagues, and as the plague of the firstborn was one

of them, it follows that this too must have been brought about by an Angel. The same Angel is

referred to in Jer. 51:1- the ―destroying spirit‖ [―wind‖, AV] who was sent forth by God to smite

Babylon; note how Revelation also describes Babylon as being destroyed by a singular Angel. In

another Angelic context we read: ―O Lord my Lord; will you be the destroyer of the remnant of

Israel?‖ (Ez. 9:8 Heb.). ―Let the Angel of the Lord persecute them‖ (Ps. 35:5,6) has the same Angel

in mind. The destroyer Angel is perhaps alluded to in Job 18:13: ―The firstborn of death‖. Job 33:23

LXX certainly is relevant: ―Though there should be one thousand Angels of death…‖. This same

'destroyer' Angel is referred to again in the context of being present with Israel to punish them if

they disobeyed in 1 Cor. 10:10 -"they were destroyed of the destroyer". So we have here on this first

Passover night the situation where one Angel is commissioned to do a certain task- in this case kill

all firstborn in Egypt- and goes ahead with this task blind to any other consideration, e. g. whether

the people concerned were obedient Israelites or not. Therefore another Angel was needed,

presumably more powerful or senior to the 'destroyer', to stop the faithful Israelites being killed. Of

course God could have given the 'destroyer' additional instructions about not killing the Jews; but it

seems to be God's way of working both amongst us and among the Angels to assign each a specific

role in the execution of His purpose, and to take pleasure in seeing each Angel or saint working in

loving co-operation with another, after the pattern of the Angelic co-operation. Ez. 20:8-14 talks

more about this destroyer Angel: "Neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will

pour out My fury upon them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land of

Egypt. But I wrought for My name's sake, that it should not be polluted among the heathen, among

whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the

land of Egypt. Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into

the wilderness. And I gave them My statutes… My sabbaths… the house of Israel rebelled against

Me in the wilderness... but I wrought for My name's sake, that it should not be polluted" . The

31

destroyer Angel went out through the midst of the land of Egypt to kill the firstborn. He wanted to

kill the Jews too because they were not forsaking the idols of Egypt- i. e. they were preparing to

take them out of Egypt with them (Ex. 13:17 and Acts 7:43 lend support here). "I"- God manifest

now in the Passover Angel- "wrought for My name's sake" (v. 9) against the Destroyer that this

should not be done. He remembered how He had "made myself known unto them" in the burning

bush, by saying there "I am the Lord your God "(v. 5). "Mine eye (the Passover Angel) spared them

from destroying them ",v. 17; i. e. from the work of the Destroyer Angel, both in Egypt at the night

of Passover and also in the wilderness. Notice how God is spoken of as both wanting to destroy

them and also striving for His Name's sake (born by the Angels) so this should not happen. It seems

sensible to interpret this by reference to the two powerful Angels active at this time, perhaps

representing the groups of Angels of good and Angels of evil (i. e. disaster bringing) which appear

to be in Heaven.

Ezekiel 20 describes how Israel took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea; indeed, they

lugged a whole pagan tabernacle system with them through the wilderness, in addition to the true

tabernacle (Acts 7:43,44).

Stephen pointed out, by the inflection which he gave to his OT quotations, that Israel's service of

God was meaningless because at the same time they worshipped their idols: "O ye house of Israel,

have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea,

ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch" as well as Yahweh's (Acts 7:43). This was a rhetorical

question. They offered the sacrifices, but actually they didn't. And what is the difference between

"slain beasts" and ―sacrifices"? Aren't sacrifices only slain beasts? The point is that the animals they

gave were only slain beasts; nothing more, not real offerings, not real, acceptable sacrifice. "They

sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but the Lord accepteth it not" (Hos.

8:13). And likewise we can dress up our devotions with the appearance of real sacrifice when there

is nothing there at all.

7:46-49 Stephen was accused by the Jews of blaspheming the temple. In reply, he gives a potted

history of Israel, emphasizing how the faithful were constantly on the move rather than being settled

in one physical place. He was subtly digging at the Jewish insistence that the temple was where God

lived. In this context, he refers to Solomon's building of the temple in a negative light. He says that

David tried to find a tabernacle for God, "But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High

dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne... what house

will ye build me?" (Acts 7:46-49). This cannot mean 'God no longer dwells in the temple as He used

to before Christ's death', because the reason given is that the prophet Isaiah says that God cannot

live in houses. This reason was true in Isaiah's time, before the time of Christ. It would seem that

Stephen is politely saying: 'Solomon made this mistake of thinking that God can be limited to a

physical building. You're making just the same mistake'. And he goes on to make a comment which

could well allude to this: " Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers (including Solomon)

did, so do ye" (Acts 7:51). Further evidence that Stephen saw Solomon's building of the temple in a

negative light is provided by the link between Acts 7:41 and 48: "They made a calf... and rejoiced in

the works of their own hands ... howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands‖.

The word " made" is stressed in the record of Solomon's building the temple (2 Chron. 3:8,10,14-16;

4:1,2,6-9,14,18,19,21). The work of the temple was very much produced by men's hands (2 Chron.

2:7,8). Things made with hands refers to idols in several Old Testament passages (e.g. Is. 2:8; 17:8;

31:7). Significantly, Solomon's temple is described as being made with hands in 1 Chron. 29:5. And

it may be significant that the words of Is. 66:1,2 concerning God not living in temples are quoted by

Paul with reference to pagan temples in Acts 17:24, and concerning the temple in Jerusalem by

Stephen. The building of the temple became an idol to Solomon. Human motives get terribly mixed.

32

It was God's clearly expressed wish that He should not live in a physical house (2 Sam. 7:12-16;

Acts 7:48; 17:24). Yet He accommodated Himself to human weakness in wanting a physical house

in which to worship Him; He came and lived (in a sense) in just such a house.

7:54 The Jews are described as 'gnashing their teeth' in furious rejection of Stephen's inspired words

(Acts 7:54); such language must surely connect with the oft repeated description of the rejected

gnashing their teeth at the judgment (Mt. 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30); as if those Jews

acted out their own rejection by their attitude to the word in this life.

7:55 In his time of dying, Stephen saw the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).

But about 13 times in the New Testament, the point is made that the Lord sits there, unlike the

Mosaic priests who stood (Heb. 10:12). Jesus was passionately feeling for Stephen; and He just as

emotionally and passionately feels for us in our struggles. This alone should lift us out of the mire of

mediocrity. Prayer will have meaning and power. It won‘t just be the repetitious conscience-salver it

can descend into.

7:56- see on Acts 2:33-36.

We are invited to see Christ as sitting there, unlike the nervous High Priests of old on their annual

entry into the Holiest standing; and we are surely invited to see the connection with the fact that

Stephen saw the Lord standing at God's right hand, caught up, as it were, in the passion of

mediation for His suffering servant (Acts 7:56), whereas normally He offers our prayers seated.

As the human judge condemned Stephen- presumably by standing up to condemn him as usually

happened in law courts (Acts 7:56 cp. Is. 3:13)- the Lord Jesus stands up in the court of Heaven as

intercessor for Stephen. And this happens time and again in our lives, as and when and if we suffer

the abuse of human condemnation and misjudgment. Although condemned by an earthly court, he

confidently makes his appeal before the court of Heaven (Acts 7:56). Doubtless he was further

inspired by the basic truth that whoever confesses the Lord Jesus before men, He will confess him

before the angels in the court of Heaven (Lk. 12:8).

Stephen's enemies "gnashed on him with their teeth", and his Biblical mind would therefore have

raced to Job 16:9, describing the behaviour of the wicked towards the faithful: "He teareth me in his

wrath, who hateth me: he gnasheth upon me with his teeth". The context goes on: "Now, behold, my

witness is in heaven and my record is on high" (v. 19). Surely Stephen had thought ahead to this, for

as his enemies gnashed their teeth against him, "he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up

steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"

(Acts 7:56). He looked up to Heaven and saw His witness, faithful and true, standing there as he

expected.

7:59 Stephen's death sentence was against Pharisaic principles; and it was a studied rejection of the

more gentle, tolerant attitude taught by Gamaliel, Paul's early mentor ("though I distribute all my

belonging to feed the poor..." in 1 Cor. 13:3 is Paul virtually quoting Gamaliel- he clearly was

aware of his stance). People like Paul who come from strict, authoritarian backgrounds can have a

tendency to anger, and yet in Paul there seems also to have operated an inferiority complex, a

longing for power, and a repressed inner guilt. Although Paul changed from an angry man to one

dominated by love, to the extent that he could write hymns of love such as 1 Cor. 13, there were

times when under provocation the old bitterness and anger flashed back. We too have these

moments, and yet in the fact that Paul too experienced them even in spiritual maturity, we have

some measure of comfort.

7:59,60 Realizing, sensing how he was living out the sufferings of his Lord, all this really motivated

Stephen; when he asked for forgiveness for his tormentors and asked for his spirit to be received

(7:59,60), he was so evidently reflecting the words of the Lord in His time of final agony and

spiritual and physical extension (Lk. 23:34,46). He saw the similarities between his sufferings and

33

those of the Lord; and therefore he went ahead and let the spirit of the Lord Jesus live in him. He

personalized those words of the Lord which he already well knew, and made them his own.

7:60 The sins of the wicked are written down against them, to be discussed with them at the

judgment (Acts 7:60 Diaglott). ―Charge them not with this sin‖ (Acts 7:60) certainly sounds as if

Stephen expected that individual actions of human sin will be raised with them at the day of

judgment. And yet the wonder of it all, is that our prayers now for our enemies can result in their

not being charged with those sins. We are in that sense called to do the work of the advocate, to

reflect the saving mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus in our prayer life right now. Our prayers for

others really can have an effect upon what will be raised with them at the judgment- for that‘s what

Stephen prayed for in his time of dying. And are we to think that his wonderful prayer went

unanswered?

8:1- see on Jn. 10:13; Rom. 1:32.

Luke uses the word for ‗Diaspora‘ to describe how the brethren were ―scattered abroad‖ (Acts 8:1,4;

11:19); he saw this persecution as turning them into the new Israel.

Acts 8:1 records that the entire membership of the Jerusalem ecclesia was scattered; the way we

read of them numbering thousands by the time of Acts 21:20 suggests that to avoid persecution

those who remained reconciled themselves with the temple, becoming a sect of Judaism,

presumably with the tithe and temple tax going to the temple rather than to the ecclesia. These

―thousands‖ of Acts 21 were probably largely converted since the persecution that arose after the

death of Stephen. The original Jerusalem ecclesia had gone and preached to the Gentiles (Acts

11:19,20), which wasn‘t what the later Jerusalem ecclesia supported. Indeed, Acts 11:22 goes

straight on to record that the Jerusalem ecclesia sent representatives to find out what was going on.

In order to escape further persecution, the Jerusalem ecclesia threw in their lot with the temple and

orthodox Judaism. Finally Paul wrote to the Jerusalem ecclesia, as recorded in Hebrews. He sorrows

that they fail to see the supremacy of Christ over Moses, and that despite initially enduring such

persecution and loss of their goods (during the early persecutions), they had lost their real faith in

Christ. The fact they weren‘t then being persecuted indicates they had reconciled with the temple.

They needed to hold on, to keep the joy of faith they once had, rather than become hard hearted,

judgmental, works-centred. But they didn‘t listen.

8:2 When the Romans began persecuting the early church, only the leaders were seized, while

crowds of obvious Christians went unpunished. This was perhaps because paganism was utterly

dependent on its elite, and most cults could easily be destroyed from the top. This explains a few

Bible puzzles- why devout men could carry Stephen to burial and yet be unharmed; why the

apostles could remain in Jerusalem [they were seen as unlearned and ignorant fishermen] whilst the

others in the Jerusalem ecclesia had to flee (e.g. the great company of priests who became obedient

to the faith). And yet Christianity spread yet further. Josephus (Antiquities 18.63-64) expresses

surprise that the ―tribe of Christians‖ [indicating their unity] had not disappeared after the death of

their founder, ―the [so-called] Christ‖. Unlike other religions, the faith of the followers was not in

the leaders- if the organization and leaders were taken away, would our church continue? The early

church did- and flourished. We must beware lest our system of elders and organizations doesn‘t take

away our individual commitment to preach and personally care for people, and especially for the

brotherhood. First century Christianity was a mass movement, rooted in a highly committed rank

and file; and therefore it had the advantage of the best of all marketing techniques: person-to-person

influence. This in the end is how we can preach far more effectively than through mass meetings or

organized campaigns [not that I am saying not to hold these].

8:3- see on Acts 26:10,11.

34

Note how in Acts 8:3, ―the church‖ is paralleled with ―every house‖ [church]: ―Saul laid waste the

church, entering into every house‖. That‘s a very significant parallel. Those house churches in sum

were the church of Christ. See on Eph. 3:15.

8:4 When the Romans began persecuting the early church, only the leaders were seized, while

crowds of obvious Christians went unpunished. This was perhaps because paganism was utterly

dependent on its elite, and most cults could easily be destroyed from the top. This explains a few

Bible puzzles- why devout men could carry Stephen to burial and yet be unharmed; why the

apostles could remain in Jerusalem [they were seen as unlearned and ignorant fishermen] whilst the

others in the Jerusalem ecclesia had to flee (e.g. the great company of priests who became obedient

to the faith). And yet Christianity spread yet further. Unlike other religions, the faith of the

followers was not in the leaders- if the organization and leaders were taken away, would your

ecclesia continue? The early church did- and flourished.

8:6 We read that a whole crowd "with one accord" believed Philip's preaching of the gospel (Acts

8:6). There was evidently a crowd mentality- every person in the crowd had the same mindset

towards Philip's preaching at that moment. Now it seems to me that we would likely judge such

momentary, mass response as mere passing emotion. But God is more positive- the record which He

inspired counts it to them as real belief, just as the "crowd" who followed the Lord are credited with

faith, even though soon afterwards they were doubting Him. That indicates to me not only the

hopefulness of God for human response to His grace, but also His willingness to accept people.

8:7 When we read in Acts 8:7 of unclean spirits crying out, the Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: ―Many

who were mentally afflicted cried out‖. This is because, according to George Lamsa, ――Unclean

spirits‖ is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics‖. It should be noted that Lamsa was a native

Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of

Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus.

It‘s significant that Lamsa‘s extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus

and Paul any support for the popular conception of the Devil and demons – he insisted that the

Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused

in order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and demons.

8:8 One gets the impression from the 2nd century writings that the joy dropped out of Christianity;

and yet the joy of the converts, and the urgent need to retain that first joy of conversion, is a major

theme in the NT (e.g. Acts 8:8; 13:52; 15:3). This strange joy must have been a major factor in

confirming the Gospel as authentic.

8:12 ―The kingdom of God‘s sake‖ (Lk. 18:29) is paralleled with the sake of the Name of Christ by

the account in Mt. 19:29. The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not

two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.

It is helpful to read Luke and Acts following straight on. It is evident that Luke saw the apostles as

continuing the work of preaching that Jesus personally performed. One of the most evident

connections is the way in which Luke ten times uses the word ‗euaggelizo‘ to describe the Lord‘s

witness; it occurs only one other time in the other Gospels. And yet Luke uses the word 15 times in

Acts to describe the witness of the apostles. He clearly saw them as continuing the ‗evangelion‘ of

Jesus. As Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom as He walked around Israel in the late 20s of

the first century (Lk. 4:43; 8:1; 9:11; 16:16), so His men continued the very same witness (Acts

8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31).

8:13- see on Acts 2:42.

8:24 As with his preaching, Peter‘s pastoral work was shot through with an awareness of his own

failure and taste of his Lord‘s grace. The lack of energy in our collective care for each other is

surely reflective of a lack of awareness of our sinfulness, a shallow grasp of grace, and a subsequent

lack of appreciation of the need to lay down our lives for the brethren, as the Lord did for us. Jesus

35

Himself encouraged Peter to see things this way, in that He arranged circumstances so that Peter

had to pray for Simon as Christ had prayed for him (Acts 8:24 cp. Lk. 22:32).

8:26 There is a theme in the New Testament that major response to preaching is often unexpected.

The disciples were told to cast the net on the other side, when they were convinced there would be

no response. Philip was told to go onto a road in the heat of the day- when nobody was travelling

(Acts 8:26). His willingness to go, to do at least something, resulted in an amazing response. This is

exactly why predicting response to preaching is well nigh impossible. It‘s why the geographical

spread of the Gospel is so hard to explain when it is humanly analyzed.

8:31- see on Rom. 10:14.

Our Bible reading can be so easily performed on a merely surface level, skimming over words

without letting their real import be felt at all. Fred Barling truly observed: ―Through long familiarity

we have come to read [the Bible] with a phlegm and impassivity which are in sharp contrast to the

amazement felt by those who came into actual contact with Jesus, and by those who first read these

accounts‖. Philip realized this when he quizzed the eunuch, with a play on words in the Greek:

"Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:31): ginoskeis ha anaginoskeis? 'Do you really

understand, experientially, what you are understanding by reading?'.

8:32 There is great emphasis on the Lord being led (Mt. 26:57; 27:2,31; Mk. 15:16; Jn. 18:13,28;

19:16; and notice how Acts 8:32 changes the quotation from Is. 53 to say that Christ was led (this

isn't in the Hebrew text). His passivity is another indication that He was giving His life of His own

volition, it wasn't being taken from Him.

8:33- see on Mt. 18:4.

8:35 Our early brethren preached a person, even a personality cult- based around the man Christ

Jesus. They preached a Christ-centred Gospel, to the extent that the preaching of the entire Gospel is

sometimes summarised as ―preaching Christ‖ (Acts 8:35; 5:42; 28:31). They preached a Man, a

more than man, who has loved us more than we loved Him, and more than we ever can love Him. In

this there is an imperative for response. It‘s not the same as demanding obedience merely for the

sake of a good time to come.

As He ‗began‘ in the prophets and expounded ―in all the scriptures the things concerning himself‖

(Lk. 24:27), so those in Him ―began at the same scripture, and preached... Jesus‖ (Acts 8:35).

8:40 Luke describes the Lord and His followers as ‗passing through‘ and teaching as He went (Lk.

2:15; 4:30; 5:15; 8:22; 9:6; 11:24; 17:11; 19:1,4); and employs the same word to describe the

preaching of the apostles in Acts (8:4,40; 9:32,38; 10:38; 11:19,22; 12:10; 13:6,14; 14:24; 15:3,41;

16:6; 17:23; 18:23,27; 19:1,21; 20:2,25). See on Acts 1:1.

9:1 The Damascus road experience surfaces time and again in Paul‘s writing and self-consciousness

(Rom. 10:2-4; 1 Cor. 9:1,16,17; 15:8-10; 2 Cor. 3:4-4:6; 5:16; Eph. 3:1-13; Phil. 3:4-11; Col. 1:23-

29). It is no mere pointless repetition that results in Luke recording Paul‘s conversion three times in

Acts (Acts 9,22,26). Special attention is being paid to his conversion, because he is being set up as

the model of all Christian conversion.

9:2- see on Acts 22:19.

9:3- see on Acts 26:10,11.

Light from Heaven. Paul‘s conversion-commissioning experience on the Damascus road has many

similarities with the commissioning of Ezekiel. Ezekiel saw a similar vision of glory, heard ―a voice

of one that spoke‖, fell to the ground, resisted the commission, received Divine assurance, rose up

by Divine invitation and was prepared for his commission by signs and wonders. The difference

was that Paul says he saw the glory of the risen Christ. Ezekiel saw the glory of Yahweh, as the

Lord Jesus wasn‘t in physical existence and hadn‘t resurrected at his time. But essentially, it was the

36

same glory- for the glory of the Father is now fully invested in the Son (Rom. 9:23; Phil. 4:19).

Ezekiel saw at the head of the vision of glory ―the likeness of a man‖. He calls this figure the

Kavod, the glory of God (Ez. 1:29). Although Jesus was not in physical existence at Ezekiel‘s time,

I suggest that Ezekiel saw a vision of the Lord Jesus in glory. John 12 says that Isaiah likewise saw

the glory of the Lord Jesus when he saw a similar vision of glory in Isaiah 6. James 2:1 speaks of

―our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory‖. Christ is ―the Lord of glory‖, reflecting the glory of God (Col.

1:27; Heb. 1:3). When Paul writes of our being transformed into ―the image of Christ‖ (Rom. 8:29;

1 Cor. 15:49) he seems to have in mind Ez. 1:28 LXX: ―The appearance of the image of the glory of

the Lord‖. ―The glory‖ in Ezekiel is personified- it refers to a person, and I submit that person was

a prophetic image of Jesus Christ. But Paul‘s big point is that we each with unveiled face have

beheld the Lord‘s glory (2 Cor. 3:16- 4:6); just as he did on the Damascus road, and just as Ezekiel

did. It follows, therefore, that not only is Paul our example, but our beholding of the Lord‘s glory

propels us on our personal commission in the Lord‘s service, whatever it may be.

9:5- see on Acts 23:1.

Paul was told by Jesus that all those whom he had persecuted were in fact Jesus personally (Acts

9:5). And this idea of the believer being so totally bound up with his or her Lord continues with

Paul throughout his life. Thus he takes a prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the

light of the whole world (Is. 49:6), and applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to

being a light to the whole world himself (Acts 13:47- although 26:23 applies it to Jesus personally).

9:8- see on Acts 13:11.

9:15 The Lord spoke of Paul even before his conversion as "a chosen vessel unto me" (Acts 9:15).

The words "chosen" ['elect'] and "vessel" recur frequently in Paul's reasoning in Romans 9-11,

where he argues that we are chosen vessels, elected / chosen by grace. It's as if Paul is warning us

not to see him as a special case, a piece of Divine artwork to be admired in passing; but as a very

real example of how God is just as powerfully at work with us. Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world

just as John 'bore' (s.w.) Christ's Gospel (Acts 9:15 = Mt. 3:11).

The obvious objection to the preceding paragraphs is that Paul was a ―chosen vessel‖ to preach the

Gospel. And indeed he was. But the above evidence demands, surely, the verdict- that he really is,

all the same, our pattern as a preacher. Significantly, Paul describes us all as ‗vessels of election‘

just as he was (Acts 9:15 RVmg. = Rom. 9:22,25).

―A chosen vessel‖ (Acts 9:15) = ―The Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you‖ (Is. 49:7 RSV).

This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to

Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

9:15 Paul was to bear Christ‘s name to the world in that he would suffer great things for the sake of

that Name (Acts 9:15,16). His sharing in the Lord‘s sufferings was the bearing of the Name before

men. The Greek word for ‗bear‘ in Acts 9:15 is the same used in Lk. 14:27 about bearing the cross.

To bear His name to the world is to bear His cross. The record of the disciples‘ persecution for the

sake of their witness is studded with references to their preaching being in the Name of Jesus (Acts

4:2,7,9,10,12 RV). Whoever heard them heard Jesus (Lk. 10:16). The prophecy of Psalm 2

concerning how ―the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ‖ was

appropriated by the preachers to themselves even though it is elsewhere applied to the crucifixion

(Acts 4:26).

9:16 Right at his baptism, Paul realized that the Lord Jesus intended to make Paul fellowship the

spirit of his experience on the cross (Acts 9:16). Later, Paul speaks of how he is "filling up what is

lacking" in the aim Christ had set him: to fellowship the crucified Lord Jesus (Phil. 3:10). As the

sufferings of Christ (i.e. his ability to relate to them) increasingly abounded in Paul (2 Cor. 1:5 Gk.),

so did his comfort and certainty that he would be in the Kingdom; because he knew that if he

suffered with Christ, he would share his glorious resurrection (2 Cor. 4:11,12). As we grow,

37

therefore, our realization that we are progressively sharing the sufferings of Christ should increase;

our understanding of the memorial meeting (which reminds us of this) will deepen, as we appreciate

more what it means to take the cup of his pain. The need and simple beauty of the breaking of bread

becomes more logical; taking those emblems becomes in a sense more difficult, yet more sobering

and comforting. The point is that as we grow, the centre of our attention will increasingly be the

Lord Jesus and his cross.

9:17- see on Lk. 1:14.

9:20 Consider two parallel descriptions of Paul‘s early preaching:

Paul ―preached Jesus, that he is the son of God‖ (Acts 9:20); Gal. 1:16 describes this as God being

pleased to reveal His Son in Paul.

Paul had the Son of God within he; he had the spirit / mind of Christ. And it was this which gave

credibility and power to his preaching Jesus as the Son of God. And God eagerly manifested

Himself and His Son through this.

9:22 At his conversion, Paul ―increased... in strength‖ (Acts 9:22). But he repeatedly uses the same

word, particularly in his later letters, to describe how Christ strengthened him (Phil. 4:13; 1 Tim.

1:12; 2 Tim. 2;1; 4:17).

Acts 9:22 records how Paul preached ―proving that this is very Christ‖. This is a strange way to put

it; it‘s as if Paul himself was standing there showing in his person, Christ Himself. Preaching is a

revealing to men of the Christ that is within us; this is what witnessing in Christ is really about,

rather than pushing bills or placing press adverts or writing letters. Not that any of these things are

to be decried, but the essence is that we from deep within ourselves reveal Christ to men. This is

why those who witness to Him, as only those in Him can, testify to His especial presence in this

work. The promise that ―I am with you always‖ was in the context of being near the preacher as he

or she witnesses.

9:27- see on Eph. 6:20.

9:29 Sometimes there was simple, joyful proclamation of the good news (euaggelizein), sometimes

patient comparison of the OT Scriptures (suzetein, Acts 9:29, paratithestai, 17:3, sumbibazein,

9:22); at other times there was the utter defeat of the listener by argument (sunchunein, 9:22). This

is a far cry from the blanket attitude to ‗the world‘ which our preachers so often show. There is a

place for intellectual argument; belief is a matter of the mind as well as the heart.

9:34- see on Lk. 5:25.

Peter told Aeneas: ―Jesus Christ healeth thee‖ (Acts 9:34 RV) when of course it was Peter standing

there healing him. He was Christ-manifest in his witness, just as we should be.

9:39 When Peter resurrects Dorcas, he asked the weeping crowd to depart before he raised her (Acts

9:39,40)- exactly repeating the Lord‘s procedure when He raised Jairus‘ daughter. Note how she is

laid in a chamber, she is spoken to by Peter, she opens her eyes and sits up, and Peter presents her

alive and asks for her to be given food. All this was evidently parallel to what Peter had been

especially invited by Jesus to come and witness when He raised the girl during His ministry. The

events Peter had been witnessed had been especially arranged so that when they repeated

themselves in his future life, he was able to see the similarities and act as a true follower and

mimicker of his Lord.

9:40 The way he put everyone out of the room, turned to the body and said ―Tabitha, arise‖, and she

rose up, is exactly the way the Lord acted (Acts 9:40 cp. Lk. 8:54). Consciously or unconsciously,

his very body language and words reflected those of the Lord.

9:41- see on Acts 3:7.

38

10:3 In Acts 10:3,22,25: an Angel ‗comes in‘ to Cornelius and gives him hope of salvation, and then

Peter ‗comes in‘ to Cornelius and explains that hope in more concrete terms. Peter was acting out

what his guardian Angel had prepared for him to do, just as Israel had to follow the leading of the

guiding Angel in the wilderness. We too must as it were follow our Angel.

10:4 Cornelius had his generous gifts responded to in the same way as his prayers- in that Peter was

sent to teach him the Gospel and baptize him (Acts 10:4). This suggests that our good deeds are

seen as an expression of our essential self, and are treated as prayers. Yet those good deeds are not

in themselves verbalized requests. It is also doubtful whether Cornelius was specifically praying for

more knowledge and the opportunity of baptism. But this is how his prayers were interpreted by

God, and this passive though unexpressed desire was interpreted and responded to.

Prayer is likened to incense coming up before God. But so also is the almsgiving of Cornelius; his

good deeds expressed a fine spirituality in his heart, and this was counted by God as prayer (Acts

10:4). Prayer is seen as an incense offering (Ps. 141:2); but the generosity of Mary (Jn. 12:3), the

work of preaching (2 Cor. 2:16); living "a life of love" (Eph. 5:2 NIV); giving money to the needy

(Phil. 4:18) are all seen as a fragrant incense offering. The act is the prayer. Mary's annointing was

to be seen as a "memorial" (Mk. 14:9), but the only other times this word is used are in connection

with the prayers of Cornelius (Acts 10:4, cp. the OT idea of prayerful people being God's

'rememberancers'). Likewise, prophecy does not have to refer to specific, lexical statements; it can

refer to the spirit and implication behind the recorded words.

10:5 The sense of the physical presence of the Angel was shown in Peter's case in the matter of

Cornelius. Acts 10:5 says that the Angel told Cornelius to send men to Joppa to ask for Peter, whilst

the Angel ("The spirit", v. 19) tells Peter in v. 20 that He has sent the men, showing how God works

through men. Thus Peter heard the voice of an Angel in his vision, and this awareness of the Angel

is perhaps continued when Peter says in v. 33 " we are all here present before God"- i. e. before the

Angel which both he and Cornelius were conscious had led them together. And later when Peter

was in prison it was maybe that same Angel that led him forth. How relieved and safe he must have

felt as he walked through those two streets with the Angel next to him! But the fact is that the Angel

walked beside him through much of his life, although his eyes like ours were holden from seeing

Him. So often in our lives we would have so much more courage if only we could see in faith that

Angel next to us. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving

through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather

than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See

on Gen. 18:10.

10:9 Jesus removed prayer from being mere liturgy into being a part of real, personal life with God.

The way Peter prays at 12 noon (Acts 10:9), and how Paul urges us to pray all the time (Rom.

12:12; Col. 4:2) are therefore radical departures from the concept of praying at set times, three times

/ day.

10:15 Consider how the unclean animals which Peter saw in the vision represented all the Gentile

world (Acts 10:15,28). They had already all been ―cleansed‖ by the blood of Christ, but He was

dead in vain, the cleansing achieved for nothing, unless the likes of Peter took the message to them.

The more and the wider and the more powerfully we do this, the more we enable the cross of Christ

to be victorious, to achieve its end, the more ‗worthwhile‘ as it were was the Lord‘s sacrifice.

10:21 ―I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?‖ (Acts 10:21) is full of

allusion to the Lord in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:56; Jn. 18:4-6). There is perhaps no exact sense in the

allusions; but they reflect the fact that the experience of the Lord‘s death and resurrection so

indelibly impressed Peter that he reflected it both consciously and unconsciously. Likewise with us-

even our body language should reflect our experience of such great salvation in so great a Saviour.

10:14- see on Ez. 4:10-14.

39

An example of relevant Old Testament quotation is shown when Christ asked Peter to kill and eat

unclean animals. He replied by quoting from Ez. 4:14, where Ezekiel refuses to eat similar food

when asked to by the Angel. Perhaps Peter saw himself as Ezekiel's antitype in his witnessing

against Israel's rejection of the word of God in Christ (note how Ez. 4:16 is a prophecy of

Jerusalem's destruction in AD70). 'In the same way as God made a concession to Ezekiel about this

command to eat unclean food', Peter reasoned, 'so perhaps my Lord will do for me'. But the Lord

was to teach him even greater things than Ezekiel.

10:15- see on Acts 10:35,36.

The fact we can be guilty of causing others to stumble means that we can limit God's gracious plan

for them. By refusing to preach to the Gentiles, Peter was ‗making common‘ what God had

potentially cleansed (Acts 10:15 RV). We can spiritually destroy our brother, for whom Christ died

(Rom. 14:15); we can undo the work of the cross for a brother who would otherwise be saved by it.

We can make others sin (Ex. 23:33; 1 Sam. 2:24; 1 Kings 16:19).

10:21 Peter was full of unconscious allusions to the Lord‘s life and words in the Gospels. Consider

how he says to Cornelius: ―I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?‖ (Acts

10:21). He is combining allusions to Mt. 26:50 and Jn. 18:4-6, but without any apparent meaning.

The similarities are too great to pass off as co-incidence. The events in the garden were so

permanently imprinted in his subconscious that they just came out.

10:34 We have spoken of how Peter was so powerful as a preacher, standing only a stone‘s throw

from where he denied his Lord, to make a speech which is studded with conscious and unconscious

reference to his own denials and need for the Lord‘s salvation. Yet consider in more detail his

preaching to Cornelius: ―I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that

feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him [Peter alludes here to Old Testament

passages such as Dt. 1:17; 10:17; Prov. 24:23; Is. 64:5]. The word which God sent unto the children

of Israel…that word, ye know‖ (Acts 10:34-37). Peter is saying that he only now perceives the truth

of those well known Old Testament passages. He is admitting that the truth of his Lord‘s criticism

of him, that he had been so slow of heart to believe what the prophets had spoken. And yet Peter

masterfully goes on to show solidarity with his readers- he tells them that they too had already heard

―the word‖ and yet now they like him needed to believe the word which they already knew. In doing

this, Peter is bridge building, between his own humanity and that of his hearers. And the wonder of

it all is that it seems this happened quite naturally. He didn‘t psychologically plan it all out. His own

recognition of sinfulness quite naturally lead him into it.

10:35 Whoever truly works righteousness "is accepted" with God right now (Acts 10:35), as well as

at the final judgment. Some faithful men experience condemnation for their sins now, with the result

that they repent and therefore at the day of judgment will not receive that condemnation

10:35,36 Peter‘s grasp of the extent of Christ‘s Lordship was reflected in the scope of his preaching.

He had known it before, but understood it only to a limited extent (see Peter And Christ). It seems

that he preferred to understand the commission to preach ―remission of sins among all nations‖ as

meaning to the Jewish diaspora scattered amongst all nations (Lk. 24:47)- notwithstanding the

copious hints in the Lord‘s teaching that His salvation was for literally all men. He preached

forgiveness (s.w. remission) to Israel because he understood that this was what the Lord‘s death had

enabled (Acts 5:31). It was Israel who needed it, because they had crucified God‘s Son- this seems

to have been his thinking. Peter applies the word ―all‖ (as in ―to all nations‖) to his Jewish

audiences (Acts 2:14,36; 3:13; 4:10). But he was taught in the Cornelius incident that because Christ

is ―Lord of all‖, therefore men from every (s.w. ―all‖) nation can receive forgiveness of sins (Acts

10:35,36). He makes the link back to the preaching commission in Acts 10:43: all in every nation

who believe can receive remission of sins (s.w. Lk. 24:47)- as he was commanded to preach in the

great commission. He came to see that the desperate need for reconcilliation with God was just as

40

strong for those who had not directly slain His Son; for, Peter may have mused, all men would have

held him ―condemned by heaven‖ if they had been Jerusalem Jews. And he realized that Christ was

truly Lord of all, all men, everywhere, and not just of a few hundred thousand Jews. And with us

too. The wider and the higher our vision and conception of the ascended Christ, the wider and more

insistently powerful will be our appeal to literally all men. Yet Peter had heard the Lord‘s words,

when He had asked them to tell all nations, and when He had prophesied that His cross would draw

all men unto Him. And his comment that ―unto you first God, having raised up His Son, sent him to

bless you‖ (Acts 3:26) suggests he suspected a wider benefit from the resurrection than just Israel.

But all this knowledge lay passive within him; as with his understanding of the cross, he just

couldn‘t face up to the full implications of what he heard. But it was his recognition of the extent of

Christ‘s Lordship that motivated him to make the change, to convert the knowledge into practice, to

throw off the shackles of traditional understanding that had held him from understanding the clear

truth of words he had heard quite clearly. An example would be the words recorded in Mk. 7:19

RV: All meats were made clean by Christ. But Peter had to be told: ―What God hath cleansed, that

call not thou common‖ (Acts 10:15). He had to be taught to simply accept the word he loved, with

all its implications.

10:36- see on 1 Cor. 6:19.

Acts 10:36 speaks of ―the word… which was proclaimed throughout all Judea… how God anointed

Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit…‖, as if the word of the Gospel is the Gospel story as

recorded by Mark and the others.

Acts 10:36,37 suggests that the word of God is the preaching of it- we cannot know the word and

not preach it: ―The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace... that word, ye

know, which was published throughout all Judea‖. The word is the preaching / publishing of it.

10:37- see on 1 Pet. 1:17.

10:39- see on Acts 5:30.

10:43- see on Acts 10:35,36.

Peter had been taught that God accepted whoever believed in Him, regardless of their race. But now

Paul had to remind Peter that truly, God ―accepteth no man‘s person‖ (Gal. 2:6). The same Greek

word was a feature of the Cornelius incident: whoever believes receives, accepts, remission of sins

(Acts 10:43), and they received, accepted, the Holy Spirit as well as the Jewish brethren (Acts

10:47). With his matchless humility, Peter accepted Paul‘s words. His perceptive mind picked up

these references (and in so doing we have a working model of how to seek to correct our brethren,

although the success of it will depend on their sensitivity to the word which we both quote and

allude to). But so easily, a lifetime of spiritual learning could have been lost by the sophistry of

legalistic brethren. It‘s a sober lesson.

10:47- see on Mt. 19:14.

11:2- see on Acts 15:5.

11:3- see on Heb. 13:9.

Eventually Peter wouldn‘t eat with the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:12). But he had learnt to eat with

Gentile brethren in Acts 11:3; he had justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its

rightness, and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should not make such

distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There‘s a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak

brother or sister- what you start by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better

judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating. It can be fairly conclusively proven that

Mark‘s Gospel is in fact Peter‘s.

41

11:14 Cornelius was told ―words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved‖ (Acts 11:14).

Belief is essential for salvation, and yet belief must have some intellectual basis; there must be some

knowledge to be believed before faith can exist. Therefore it is utterly impossible to divorce

understanding from ultimate acceptability. This is because the vital virtue of faith is rooted in

understanding.

11:16 When dealing with the tricky ecclesial situation which arose over the admission of the

Gentiles, Peter had truth and right on his side. But in his account of what happened to the elders, he

constantly makes allusion to his own failures. ―Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that

he said…‖ is an unmistakeable reference to his remembering of the Lord‘s word all too late after his

denials. It‘s as if he was saying: ‗And there I was again, not remembering the Lord‘s word, not

facing up to what it obviously implied, almost denying Him again by hesitating to accept these

Gentiles‘. He comments that the vision of the unclean animals came ―even to me‖, as if he was the

least worthy to have been involved with this work.

11:17- see on Mt. 19:14; Rom. 15:16.

Growing appreciation of the excellency of the Lord Jesus was also a feature of Peter's spiritual

growth; he was the first to coin the phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 11:17); although never did

he call the Lord simply "Jesus" (indeed it seems that none of the disciples addressed and rarely

spoke about Jesus without giving Him a title). Trace through the path of Peter's growth on

appreciation of the Lord's greatness: Mt. 16:22 (arguing with Him!); Acts 2:36; 10:36; 11:17. When

Peter realized he was looking at the risen Christ standing on the shore, he exclaimed, with evident

appreciation: "It is the Lord" - not 'Jesus' (Jn. 21:7). And even though he had to swim to meet Him,

Peter cast his fisher's coat about him to cover his bare arms and legs. He realized the greatness

which attached to the Man from Nazareth on account of His resurrection. After the pattern of Peter,

some of the early brethren likewise reached this appreciation of the Lord's excellence and the

importance of it as the climax of their probations; for many were slain simply because they insisted

on calling Jesus of Nazareth "Lord", when Nero had insisted that he be called 'Lord' (cp. Acts

25:26). Those brethren (and sisters) died with the confession of Jesus as Lord on their lips- and

more importantly, deep in their hearts.

The grace of God is manifested to the world through the preaching of the ecclesia; and in this sense,

God has allowed His ability to manifest this Grace to be limited according to our effort in witness.

Peter could have chosen not to baptize Gentiles; and if he had done so, he would have withstood

God, like the Pharisees he would have frustrated the counsel of God (Acts 11:17). As in the Song of

Solomon (1:8), the bride [the church] follows the sheep [believers] to find the shepherd [Jesus]. The

sheep lead others to the shepherd. God has ―manifested his word through preaching, which is

committed unto me‖ (Tit. 1:3).

11:17,18 ―The like gift as he did also unto us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ… the

Gentiles also… repented unto life‖ (Acts 11:17,18 RV). It was at Pentecost that Peter saw himself

as having repented / converted, to a higher level.

11:18 In our moments of repentance, both at baptism and on the many subsequent occasions, it is

hard to believe that in prospect God's enormous Spirit power has really prepared a way for us to be

totally spiritual. Israel on Carmel with Elijah were in a similar position; thus Elijah prayed "Hear

me, O Lord... that this people may know... that Thou hast turned their heart back again" (1 Kings

18:37). He meant: 'They don't realize that you are so willing for them to repent, that in prospect you

have touched their hearts and made them do it; answering my prayer dramatically may motivate

them to make the necessary freewill response in repenting, so that the spiritual help you have made

available in prospect, can be theirs in reality'. Even the frankest comparison of ourselves with that

motley crew of hardened apostates should inspire afresh the belief within us that God is willing that

all His people should continually come to repentance. The reference in Acts 11:18 to God granting

42

repentance shows that He is active in developing our desire to repent; "the goodness of God leadeth

thee to repentance" (Rom.2:4).

11:19- see on Acts 8:1.

11:22 The Jerusalem ecclesia told Barnabus to go only as far as Antioch; he didn‘t tell them how

wrong they were to boss him around. He went beyond Antioch to Tarsus, took Paul, and then went

down to Antioch (Acts 11:22,25). In the end, whilst we must respect those who deserve it, we are

personal servants of the Lord who died for us, and we must follow Him according to our personal

conscience. The lesson from this is that we should seek to be as positive as possible in the midst of

this tension between right and left- especially in the way we write or speak about the problems. We

should seek to move the Gospel forward, whatever unhappy disagreements there are between those

already baptized.

11:22- see on Acts 8:1.

11:26 All Christians are disciples, ‗learners‘ (Acts 11:26); the twelve men who followed the Lamb

of God around Galilee, with all their misunderstandings and lack of faith, were and are symbols of

us all. The focus was upon Him, not each other. We are all learners of Christ, taught by He Himself

(Eph. 4:20,21). And we are to make all men into disciples (Mt. 28:19 RV); to make them learners of

Jesus too.

11:29 First century people were relatively passive to disasters compared to Euro-American people

today. A famine was an act of God, of nature, and it had to be accepted; the idea of one ethnic group

taking up a collection for another one in another place who were suffering from famine was a real

paradigm breaker. And that's just what Paul engineered, in arranging for the Gentile converts to take

up such a collection for the Jewish believers in Palestine who were suffering famine.

The Mosaic Law countered this idea that only the rich can be generous. The purification after

childbirth and the cleansing of the leper allowed a lower grade of offering to be made by the very

poor- to underline that no one is exempted from giving to the Lord, no matter how poor they are.

Consider the emphasis: "Every man shall give as he is able... he shall offer even such as he is able

to get... then the disciples (consciously motivated by these principles?) every man according to his

ability, determined to send relief [one gets the picture of a convoy of brethren going to Jerusalem,

carrying a little bit of meal from Sister Dorcas, a few coins from brother Titus...] ... let every one of

you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (Dt. 16:17; Lev. 14:30,31; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor.

16:2).

12:8- see on Jn. 21:13.

When the Angel told Peter "Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals... and follow me" (Acts 12:8), he

was alluding back to the Lord's words to Peter, that when he would be old, others would gird him

and carry him to his death (Jn. 21:18). The Angel was therefore saying that the time of Peter's death

had not yet come. The lesson is, that the amount of comfort and reassurance Peter took from the

Angels' words would have been proportionate to the degree to which he had meditated on his Lord's

prophecy. And so with us.

12:11 Peter was delivered from prison as a result of the Angel being ―sent forth‖- from the court of

Heaven, by the prayers of the other believers at their prayer meeting (Acts 12:11 RV). When those

same believers commented: ―It is his Angel‖ (:15) they were perhaps not mocking Rhoda; rather

they were thanking God that Peter‘s guardian Angel had indeed been sent forth due to their prayers.

12:15 The believers in Acts 12 gathered together to hold a prayer meeting for Peter‘s release. Their

prayers were answered; he stood outside, knocking on the door. But they simply didn‘t believe it.

They couldn‘t conceive their prayer was answered. They mocked poor Rhoda and told her to go

back and watch the door and not disturb them any more while they prayed for Peter‘s release. And

having mocked her, they got back on their knees and asked again for his release. We can pray, in

43

faith apparently, but with no very deep faith that the answer in actual reality will happen or may

already have been granted.

12:17- see on Mt. 28:10.

When the Angel ‗brought Peter forth out of the prison‘, Acts 12:17 records this as ―the Lord‖

(Jesus) doing so (RV). He worked through [one specific?] Angel.

There seem to be a number of unconscious allusions by Peter back to his own failures- e.g. ―Go

shew these things unto James, and to the brethren‖ (Acts 12:17) was an allusion to the women being

told to go and shew the news of the resurrection to the brethren and Peter, who was then in spiritual

crisis. Those words, that fact, was ingrained upon Peter to the point that he unconsciously builds it

in to his own words. In Acts 12:17 the same Greek words are used by Peter as by the Lord: ―Go

shew these things… to the brethren‖. Peter felt that his deliverance from prison was like the Lord‘s

resurrection, and perhaps unconsciously he used the Lord‘s words to Mary Magdalene. Peter then

went ―to another place‖ just as the Lord did on saying those words. He saw that his life was a living

out of fellowship with the Lord‘s mortal experiences, every bit as much as our lives are too.

The way Peter beckons to the disciples to hold their peace, declares how the Lord had brought him

out of the prison and death, tells them to go and shew these things to the brethren and then goes

―unto another place‖ is a reflection of the Lord‘s behaviour after His resurrection (Acts 12:17 cp.

Mt. 28:19). Consciously and unconsciously, confirmed by providence, Peter was living out the fact

he was in Christ; he was showing the risen Lord to men and women by his words and actions.

12:20 Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of

God is highlighted. After the establishment of the first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems

to emphasize the pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord" was a

hallmark of the early brethren (Acts 1:14; 2:1,46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25); but the world were in "one

accord" in their opposition to that united ecclesia (Acts 7:57; 12:20; 18:12; 19:29). The two women

of Proverbs both have surface similarities; folly parodies wisdom. Thus the words of the adulteress

drip honey and oil (Prov. 5:3), just as those of wisdom do (Prov. 16:24). Rabshakeh promised the

Jews an Assyrian Kingdom where everyone sat under their own vine and fig tree- consciously

parodying Micah‘s contemporary prophecies of God‘s future Kingdom (Is. 36:16 cp. Mic. 4:4). The

Assyrian Kingdom was set up as a parody of Solomon‘s, which was the Kingdom of God (1 Kings

4:25; 2 Chron. 9:8). A glance through the descriptions of the beasts- the Kingdoms of this world-

reveals that they are all set up in terms of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.

12:21- see on Jn. 19:13.

12:24 We must believe, really and truly, that the word will not return void, but it will accomplish

what it is intended to achieve. We are not scattering seed with the vague hope that something might

sprout up; we are planting, fully expecting to see a harvest. ―The word of God grew and multiplied‖

(Acts 12:24) surely means that the number of converts to the word multiplied- for the same word is

repeatedly used in this sense (Acts 6:1,7; 5:14; 9:31; 19:20). Thus ―the word of God‖ is put by

metonymy for ‗the response to the word of God‘, as if the word will inevitably bring forth response.

See on Mt. 13:19.

12:25 It's recorded that Paul 'fulfilled his ministry' (Acts 12:25); and he can use the same two words

in telling Archippus to ensure that he too fulfils his ministry (Col. 4:17). Surely Paul is setting

himself up as a pattern, and inviting his brother to follow it.

Some changed their Hebrew names into the Latin forms when they went on mission work into the

Roman world: Silas became Silvanus, Saul became Paulus, Joseph Barsabbas became Justus (Acts

1:23); and hence we read of ―John, whose other [Latin] name was Mark‖ (Acts 12:12,25).

13:1- see on Mt. 27:32.

44

13:2 - see on Acts 18:18.

All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was as

Barnabus and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a

missionary journey (Acts 13:2). Likewise it was as the Levites were in process of collecting funds

for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more

space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll (2 Chron.

34:14).

Paul appropriates the words of Hab. 1:5 LXX to his work of preaching: ―I work a work in your days,

which ye will in no wise believe though a man declare it unto you‖. And so when we read of the

men Barnabas and Saul being sent out on the work of the first missionary journey, we are to see an

allusion back to Hab. 1:5 (Acts 13:2; 14:26). And yet that passage went on to say that the work

would not be believed. Yet hoping against hope, they embarked on the missionary journey. Cyprus

didn‘t respond, initially- as they had expected. But soon their positive spirit was rewarded, and

converts were made, against all odds.

13:5- see on Acts 4:24-30.

13:9 It can be no accident that Saul appears to have changed his name to ‗Paul‘, ―the little one‖, at

the time of his first missionary journey. His preaching of the Gospel was thus related to his own

realization of sinfulness, as reflected in his name change. And so it has ever been. Saul becomes

Paul in so many lives. True self-abnegation, recognition of our moral bankruptcy, our desperation,

and the extent of the grace we have received… these two paradoxical aspects, fused together within

the very texture of human personality, are what will arrest the attention of others in this world and

lead them to the Truth we can offer them.

Saul and Paul

Various expositors have noticed the links between Saul and Paul. "Is Saul also among the

prophets?" was directly matched by 'Is Saul of Tarsus also among the Christians?'. The way Paul

was let down through a window to escape persecution was surely to remind him of what King Saul

had done to David (1 Sam. 19:12). They were both Benjamites, and perhaps his parents saw him as

following in Saul's footsteps. And it seems Paul was aware of this. The implication is that by Acts

13:9 Paul consciously changed his name from Saul to Paul ('the little one'). It is difficult to avoid

seeing the link with 1 Sam. 15:17: " When thou wast little (Heb. 'the littlest one') in thine own

sight", God anointed Saul and made him the rosh, the chief, over Israel. Maybe Paul's parents

intended him to be the rosh over Israel; and it seems he would have made it had he not been

converted. I suggest that 1 Sam. 15:17 rung in Paul's mind. He saw how he had persecuted Christ, as

Saul had David. He saw the self-will within him as it was in Saul. Yet he went on to see the tragedy,

the utter tragedy, of that man. He saw how pride had destroyed a man who could have achieved so

much for God. And he determined that he would learn the lesson from Saul's failure (as he

determined to learn the lessons from those of John the Baptist and Peter). So he changed his name to

Paul, the little one. What influence his sustained meditation on one Old Testament verse had upon

him! It affected some basic decisions in his life; e.g. the decision to change his name. There was a

time, according to the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. 15:17, when Saul felt he was 'the littlest one' (as

demonstrated in 1 Sam. 9:21; 10:22). This was so, so pleasing to God. Saul at that moment,

captured as it were in a snapshot, as the obvious, anointed King of Israel hid among the baggage,

knowing in his heart he was no way suited to be the leader of God's Israel, was Paul's hero. And

Paul alludes to it when he says he is less than the least of all saints, least of the apostles, chief of

sinners (1 Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:15- note the progressive realisation of his sinfulness over

time). He earnestly resolved to be like Saul was at the beginning. When he describes himself as

"anointed" (2 Cor. 1:21) he surely had his eye on 1 Sam. 15:17 again; when Saul was little in his

own eyes, he was anointed. Paul tried to learn the lessons from Saul, and re-apply Saul's

45

characteristics in a righteous context. Thus Saul was jealous (1 Sam. 18:8; 19:1), and Paul perhaps

had his eye on this when he describes himself as jealous for the purity of the Corinthians (2 Cor.

11:2). "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19) is surely a reference back to

Saul's disobedience (1 Sam. 15:22).

13:10- see on Lk. 3:4; Jn. 8:44.

In Acts 13:10 Paul calls Elymas a ―son of the devil‖ (RV), implying he was a tare sown among the

wheat (Mt. 13:38).

13:11- see on 2 Pet. 2:17.

It is possible that the way he made Elymas blind ―not seeing the sun for a season‖, so that he had to

be led by the hand (Acts 13:11), is all so reminiscent of Paul‘s own experience in 9:8 that it would

seem he was consciously seeking to replicate his own conversion in the life of another man. And

this is, indeed, the very essence of preaching from a grateful heart. He saw the power that worked in

Him as working in all of us (Eph. 3:7,20). See on Col. 1:9.

13:13- see on Acts 6:1.

John Mark was an example of one 'brought up in it' (almost) who made it real for himself in the very

end. His mother Mary owned the home where the first ecclesia met in Jerusalem- he would have

known all the leading lights, the doubts, the joys, the fears, the debates of the early church.

Barnabas was his kindly uncle, who took him on the first missionary journey with Paul. Cyprus was

OK, but once they landed at Perga, Paul insisted on leaving the coast road and going up the

dangerous road to preach on the uplands; and Mark quit, scared perhaps to risk his life that far. And

so he went back to his mum in Jerusalem, and the safety of the home ecclesia. And no doubt he was

warmly welcomed home, as the Jerusalem ecclesia by then were beginning to consider Paul as

apostate. But over the months, things changed. John Mark wanted to go again, and his uncle

Barnabas encouraged him. But Paul would have none of it. That rejection must have sorely hurt

Mark; and we hear nothing more of him for about 15 years. Then, when Paul was in prison, he starts

to get mentioned. He is called there Paul's "fellow-prisoner" (Col. 4:10), as if he too had been

imprisoned for his bold preaching. To Philemon, Paul writes that Mark is his "fellow-worker‖; and

in his last days, he begs Mark to come and see him (2 Tim. 4:9-11). Peter also, probably writing

likewise from Rome ["Babylon"] mentions Mark as his "son" (1 Pet. 5:13), and tradition has it that

Mark wrote down Peter's Gospel. So the young brother who possibly had been made flabby by the

nice background, eventually made it real for himself in the end.

13:16 The early brethren preached looking for a response. They were preaching toward decision, for

conversion. The Lord taught us that He will make His followers fishers of men; and fishers catch

something, they aren‘t fishermen if they just offer a bait indifferently. Paul taught that his hearers

should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance (Acts 26:20). The address in the

synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia has three parts, each marked by an appeal to the listeners. Clearly it

has been planned in advance, and was an appeal for response (Acts 13:16,26,38). These preachers

weren‘t shy in asking men and women to decide for or against the love of God in Jesus. They

challenged men to do something about the message they had heard.

13:20 Sometimes the Bible is very vague. Under inspiration, the Hebrew writer seems to have

forgotten the exact quotation, or to have been deliberately vague, when he speaks of "one in a

certain place testified" (Heb. 2:6). There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers

rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", Acts 13:20 cp. 1 Kings 6:1).

The reference to "seventy" in Judges 9:56 also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (2 Sam.

2:11) becomes "seven years" (1 Kings 2:11); three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9) becomes

"three months" (2 Kings 24:8). And 1 Kings 7:23 gives the circumference of the laver as ―thirty

cubits‖, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‗pi‘ to be 3.14, it is apparent that the circumference

would have been 31.4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, ―thirty‖. Surely this is to show that

46

God is God, not man. His word is not contradictory, but in ensuring this, God does not sink down to

the level of a man who wanted to forge an apparently faultless book, carefully ensuring that every

figure exactly tallied. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is behind the many

Bible paradoxes which we meet.

13:22 Perhaps David was only after God‘s own heart at the time Samuel anointed him?

David was, in God's opinion, a man after His own heart, who fulfilled all His will (Acts 13:22). Yet

this is the God whose ways are not, and cannot be, ours. Yet this is how humble He is, and how

positive His view of a faithful servant.

13:23 The false doctrine of the physical ‗pre-existence‘ of Christ before birth makes a nonsense of

the repeated promises that he would be the descendant of Eve, Abraham and David. The early

preachers emphasized that Jesus was ―of David‘s posterity‖ [Gk. Spermatos- Acts 2:29-31; 13:23;

Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8]. If he were already existing up in heaven at the time of these promises, God

would have been incorrect in promising these people a descendant who would be Messiah.

13:24- see on Mt. 3:7.

13:24,25 As John preached repentance with a deep sense of his own unworthiness, so did Paul, with

exactly that same sense (Acts 13:24,25 = 17:3; 20:21; 26:20).

13:26- see on Lk. 23:34.

13:27 Consider the intensity of allusion to the records of Christ's death and resurrection in Acts

13:27-38:

Acts Gospels

13:27 Lk. 24:27

13:28 Mt. 27:72; Mk. 15:13

13:29 Mt. 27:59

13:30 Mt. 28:6

13:38 Lk. 24:47

Thus Paul's early recorded preaching was basically a commentary on the Gospel records of Christ's

death and resurrection (as was Peter's).

It was because the rulers of Israel "knew not... the voices of the prophets which are read every

sabbath day" (Acts 13:27) that they crucified the Lord. He speaks of their "voices" rather than

merely their words. They had heard the words, but not felt and perceived that these were the actual

voices of men who being dead yet speak. They didn't feel the wonder of inspiration in their attitude

to Bible study- even though they would have devoutly upheld the position that the Bible texts were

inspired. And here we have a lesson for ourselves. See on Rom. 9:27; Jn. 5:39.

13:30,31- see on Lk. 23:55.

13:38 ―Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins‖, Paul stressed (Acts 13:38)-

the preaching of the man Paul was in effect the preaching of the man Christ Jesus.

Because the Lord‘s resurrection enabled forgiveness of sins (1 Cor. 15:17), Peter therefore on this

basis makes an appeal for repentance and appropriation of the Lord‘s work for men through baptism

into His death and resurrection (Acts 2:31-38; 3:15,19 ―therefore"). And Paul likewise: ―He, whom

God raised again... through [on account of] this man [and His resurrection] is preached unto you the

forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:37,38). Because of the Name the Lord has been given, salvation has

been enabled (Acts 4:12 cp. Phil. 2:9). ―God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you,

in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:26); ―the God of our fathers raised up

Jesus… exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give (i.e. inspire) repentance

47

to Israel, and forgiveness" (Acts 5:30,31). The fact of the Lord‘s resurrection has obtained

forgiveness of sins for all who will identify themselves with it through baptism into Him; and this is

why it is thereby an imperative to preach it, if we believe in it. The disciples were told to go and

preach of the resurrection of Christ, and therefore of the required responses this entails: repentance,

acceptance of forgiveness and baptism (Lk. 24:46). Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (1

Cor. 15:14). Baptism saves us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21 cp. Rom. 4:25; Col.

2:13).

13:40 Prophecies of judgment can come true at any time if there is the required ‗condition‘ of

disbelief and disobedience. Hence Paul warns Israel: ―Beware therefore, lest that come upon you,

which is spoken of in the prophets, Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish…‖ (Acts 13:40).

The prophecy didn‘t have to come true for them; but they should ―beware‖ lest it did.

13:43 They weren‘t interested in giving good advice, but rather good news. They were pressed in

their spirit, that they had to appeal to men (13:43; 18:13; 26:28; 28:23; Gal. 1:10). They persuaded

men, convinced and confounded the Jews, reasoned, testified and exhorted, disputed and converted

(8:25; 18:13,19,28; 2:40). In short, they so spake that multitudes believed (14:1).

13:45 The Jews of Antioch in Pisidia cursed Paul and his message (Acts 13:45 Gk.), drove him out

of the city, and then travelled 180 km. to Lystra to oppose his preaching there. See on 1 Thess. 2:16.

13:46 One phrase of Paul's in Acts 13:46 combines allusions to two verses in Matthew (21:41;

22:8). Those verses are close to each other. As Paul thought about 21:41, he would have gone on to

22:8, and then brought them both together in his allusion- ultimately controlled by the Spirit, of

course.

Not only are we living out our judgment by how we preach; by presenting the Gospel to people we

are effectively bringing the judgment to them. Paul commented how those who rejected his

preaching judged / condemned themselves to be unworthy (Acts 13:46). The Jews by their attitude

to the word "judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46); and we too can anticipate

the judgment seat by the same mistake. The preacher stands in the ‗highways‘ (Mt. 22:9)- ‗the place

of two roads‘, the Greek means, i.e. the place where two roads divide. This is what our taking of the

Gospel to people means. They are given their choice. We bring the crisis of the judgment seat right

in front of them, and they make their choice.

13:47- see on Lk. 1:45.

Isaiah's prophecies of Christ being a light to the Gentiles in the Kingdom were fulfilled in Paul

(Is.49:6= Acts 13:47; and is Is.49:4 also a prophecy of Paul's thoughts? "I said, I have laboured in

vain, I have spent my strength for nought... yet surely my judgment is with the Lord").

Paul noticed the prophecy that Christ was to be the light of the whole world and saw in this a

commandment to him to go and preach Christ world-wide (Acts 13:47). He read ―…for that which

had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider‖ (Is.

52:15) as a prophecy which required him to fulfil it, by taking Christ to those who had not heard

(Rom. 15:21). All that is prophesied of Christ is an imperative to us as His body to action. Paul was

to bring others to the light just as John had (Lk. 1:77,79 = Acts 13:47; 26:18,23). Paul takes a

prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the light of the whole world (Is. 49:6), and

applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the whole world

himself (Acts 13:47- although 26:23 applies it to Jesus personally). Paul even says that this

prophecy of Christ as the light of the world was a commandment to him; all that is true of the Lord

Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are in Him. Note that Paul says that God has

commanded us to witness; it wasn‘t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied

Isaiah‘s words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to us, to all who are in

Christ. Because everything said about Christ is a commandment to all of us who are in Him. What

would Jesus do, who would He be, if He lived in your street, did your job, was married to your

48

partner, mixed with the guys you mix with? The answer to that is our mission. In this sense He has

in this world no arms or legs or face than us.

13:51 The way Paul shook off the dust of his feet against those who rejected his preaching was

surely an almost unconscious reflection of the attitude which the Lord had enjoined upon his men;

but there is no evidence that Paul was given the same commission (Acts 13:51 cp. Mt. 10:14).

13:52- see on Acts 8:8.

14:1 Paul so spoke that men believed (Acts 14:1). Presentation is important. Yet, his speech was

―rude… contemptible… not with wisdom of speech‖ (2 Cor. 10:10; 11:6; 1 Cor. 1:17AVmg.). Yet it

was because Paul so spoke that men believed. He spoke God‘s Truth in his own words, with no

pretensions, with no attention to a smooth presentation; and the more real, the more credible.

Because he spoke things as they are, right between the eyes, without posing as anyone apart from

the real, human guy Paul… therefore men believed. He came over as credible and convinced, and he

inspired others to this end.

14:2 Because doctrine and practice are linked, the Gospel is something to which man must be

obedient (Acts 14:2 R.V.)- it isn't merely a set of academic propositions. It results in "the obedience

of faith‖. Probably the greatest temptation for all of us, in all stages of our spiritual career, is to be

like Israel of old: to know the Faith, on an abstract, surface level, but not to really believe it in our

hearts, and therefore not to act in the way God intends. Paul was aware of this difference; he spoke

of us as those who believe and know the Truth (1 Tim. 4:3).

14:3- see on Acts 17:34.

14:10- see on Acts 3:8.

14:15 Paul and Barnabas ran amongst the crowd in Lystra shouting ―We also are men of like nature

with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn… unto the living God‖ (Acts 14:15 RVmg.).

Exactly because they were ‗one of us‘, they could make the appeal of the Gospel. As the Lord Jesus

was and is our representative, so we are His representative to men, whilst being ‗one of them‘, ‗one

of us‘. This is why we shouldn‘t be afraid to show chinks in our armour, to admit our humanity, and

on that basis make appeal to men: that I, as one of us, with all your humanity, your doubts and fears,

am appealing to you to grasp that better way. When Paul wrote that if anyone was weak, he was

weak, he seems to be saying that they could match their spiritual weakness by his own. This is why

personal contact must be the intended way to witness.

14:20 Paul was stoned and dragged out of Lystra as dead- presumably they didn‘t want him to die

within the city limits as they were under Roman jurisdiction. Yet, hobbling and bleeding, he

returned into the city to witness (Acts 14:20). And it was here in Lystra that he made one of his

greatest converts, Timothy (Acts 16:1). And when Paul asks us to follow him, he is speaking in the

context of his life‘s work and preaching. He is our pattern, to be lived out in spirit within the

confines within which God has placed us.

14:21- see on Mt. 28:20.

14:22 Paul spoke of how we must go through tribulation to enter the Kingdom. Perhaps he was

alluding to the Lord‘s parable of the sower, where He taught that when, and not ―if‖ tribulation

arises (Mt. 13:21). Paul knew that it must come because of the way the Lord had worded the

interpretation of the parable.

We must have tribulation, either in the condemnation of the judgment (Rom. 2:9), or now, in order

that we will enter the Kingdom (Acts 14:22). We must bear the burden either of our sins (Am. 2:13;

Is. 58:6; Ps. 38:4) or of the Lord's cross (Gal. 6:4 etc.). We will experience either the spiritual

warfare of the striving saint (Rom. 7:15-25), or the lusts of the flesh warring in our members, eating

us up with the insatiability of sin (James 4:1; Ez. 16:28,29). See on Mt. 3:11.

49

14:26 The experience of grace is the essential motive behind all witness. Thus Paul was

―recommended‖ [Gk. To surrender, yield over to] to the grace of God for the missionary work

which he fulfilled (Acts 14:26).

15:1 The legalists taught that unless believers kept the circumcision laws, ―ye cannot be saved‖

(Acts 15:1). The very same Greek phrase is used by Paul when he calls out in urgency during the

storm: ―Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved‖ (Acts 27:31). Surely Luke‘s record is

making a connection; the legalists taught that it was time to quit the rest of the community unless

they got their way, for the sake of their eternal future; and Paul responds by teaching that our

salvation depends upon us pulling together against the desperate situation we find ourselves in. It‘s

as if the salvation of Christ‘s body depends upon it staying together. As time went on in the first

century, the gap between the Jewish and Gentile elements, the right and the left wing, the legalists

and the libertines, got ever wider. The tension got stronger. But nobody won. The Jewish element

returned to the Law, and forgot all about the saving grace of Jesus. The Gentile element mixed even

more with the world and its philosophies, and forgot the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They

ended up formulating blasphemous doctrines like the trinity, which nobody with any awareness of

the Jewish foundation of the Father and Son could possibly have entertained. And so the faith was

lost, until it was revived again in those groups who again interpreted Christianity in terms of ―the

hope of Israel‖.

15:4 In Acts 15 the representatives of the ecclesias reported to the whole church at Jerusalem, not

just the elders. There seems to have been a series of meetings: initially, the group from Antioch who

raised the problems being discussed met with the elders (Acts 15:4), who met together in a second

meeting to consider it all, involving ―the whole assembly…the whole church‖ (:6,12,22). Then there

was perhaps a third meeting where ―the whole assembly‖ was also present. And this is why ―the

apostles and elders with the whole church‖ (Acts 15:22) agreed a solution. It wasn‘t a top down

decision imposed upon the congregation. They all participated. This parallel between elders and the

assembly is even found in the Old Testament- e.g. ―Let them exalt him also in the assembly of the

people, And praise him in the assembly of the elders‖ (Ps. 107:32). The ―assembly of the people‖

and that of the elders is paralleled.

15:5 One of the major themes of Acts is how right from the beginning, there was a struggle within

the body of believers. And Paul‘s letters repeatedly address the problem. The Jewish believers

polarised around the Jerusalem ecclesia, and tended towards a keeping of the Law of Moses. They

couldn‘t really accept that Gentiles could be saved, and saw themselves as a sect of Judaism (―the

sect of the Nazarenes‖). They were called ―the circumcision party‖ (Acts 11:2), and ―the sect of the

Pharisees-who-believe-in-Jesus‖ (15:5). The Lord had foretold that His true people would soon be

thrown out of the synagogues and persecuted by the Jews, just as they had persecuted Him. But

these brethren so accommodated themselves to Jewish thinking that this didn‘t happen.

Ironically, the Greek word for ‗heresy‘ is the very word used to describe those divisions / ‗sects‘

which should not be amongst us (see its usage in Acts 15:5; 24:5). To divide the Lord‘s body is

itself a heresy; and yet it is so often done in order to protect His body, supposedly, from heresy. Yet

the difference between the heresy and the heretic is often fudged. The person gets attacked rather

than their beliefs. So often we‘ve seen this happened. A brother may, e.g., have views of the

interpretation of prophecy which are found obnoxious by some. Yet the criticism of him will tend to

get personal; his character is besmirched, because it‘s felt that this is justified because he

[supposedly] has ‗heretical‘ views.

15:8- see on Acts 26:22.

15:10 There is the possible suggestion in Acts 15:10 that God was ‗tempted‘ to re-enstate the law of

Moses, or parts of it, in the first century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians

desired to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great encouragement.

50

15:11- see on Mt. 14:30.

15:13- see on Lk. 1:14.

15:14 "In that day (of the future Kingdom- v.14) will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is

fallen" (Amos 9:11)- a clear future Kingdom prophecy, but quoted about the building up of the first

century church in Acts 15:14-16.

15:15-17 Reflect carefully upon James‘ justification of Peter‘s preaching to the Gentiles: ―To this

agree the words of the prophets; as it is written (in Am. 9:11 LXX)… I will build again the

tabernacle of David which is fallen; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that

the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called‖

(Acts 15:15-17). He is surely saying that because the house of David has been rebuilt, therefore it is

now O.K. to help the Gentiles ―seek after the Lord‖. James perceived that firstly the Gospel must go

to the house of David, the Jews, and once they had responded, then it would go to the Gentiles.

Perhaps the Lord had the same principle in mind when He bad His preachers to not [then] preach to

Gentiles but instead [at that stage] concentrate on preaching to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5). Yet

the primary fulfillment of Amos 9 is clearly in the last days- then, after Israel have been sifted in the

sieve of persecution amongst the Gentiles in the latter day holocaust, the tabernacle of David will

again be ‗rebuilt‘, the Gentiles will turn to the Lord, and then ―the plowman shall overtake the

reaper… the mountains shall drop sweet wine… and I will bring again the captivity of my people

Israel…and I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their

land‖ (Am. 9:13-15). Surely what we are being told is that there must be a repeat of what happened

in the first century. What happened then, in the repentance of a minority in Israel, the spread of the

Gospel to the world and then the Lord‘s ‗coming‘ in AD70… this must all be repeated on a far

greater scale. Thus some in Israel must repent in the last days, after the pattern of the 1st century.

This will bring about the great latter day gathering in of the Gentiles at the establishment of the

Kingdom, when the whole Gentile world will seek to come up to Zion (Is. 2:3; 19:23; 11:10; 51:4,5;

60:3,11; 66:20; Zech. 8:21).

15:16 A note is perhaps necessary about how the NT writers quoted from the LXX. Because often it

appears they don‘t quote exactly from the LXX. The classic example would be the way Amos

9:11,2 is quoted in Acts 15:16-18. The argument of James actually hinges on the LXX reading as

opposed to the Hebrew [Masoretic] text reading. ‗All the nations‘ were to have God‘s Name called

upon them, whereas Is. 63:19 describes the Gentiles as people upon whom God‘s Name had not

[then] been called. Yet this ‗quotation‘ is actually a merger of the Amos passage with several others

(Is. 45:21; Jer. 12:15; Hos. 3:5). That‘s why James introduces the quotation with the comment that

he is quoting ―the prophets‖ (plural). The quotation is more like an interpretation of the text- which

was how the Jews were used to interpreting the OT texts. Their principle of exposition, called

gezera shawa, linked together Bible texts which used the same language. One of the texts which

James incorporates into his ‗quotation‘ is Jer. 12:16 LXX, which speaks of how converted Gentiles

will be ―in the midst of my people‖. Yet this very phrase occurs several times in Lev. 17 and 18,

where we have the commands for how the Gentiles who lived amongst Israel should behave (Lev.

17:8,10,12,13; 18:26). They were told that there were four areas where their lifestyle had to conform

to Jewish practice. And these are the very four areas, in the same order, which James asks the

Gentile Christians to obey! Clearly, then, the decree of Acts 15, commanding the Gentile Christians

to e.g. not eat blood, had as its context how Gentile Christians should live ‗in the midst of‘ a Jewish

Christian ecclesia. This is the limitation of the context. From this little exercise in exposition we

learn how carefully and intricately the early brethren expounded the OT. Yes, they used the LXX,

but they used it in such a way as to bring out practical points, searching always for Bible precedents

for the situations they found themselves in. They set us quite some example, especially considering

that James, the Lord‘s brother, would have been a manual worker and artisan as the Lord was;

51

perhaps he was scarcely literate. And yet he reached such heights of exposition and wisdom purely

from a simple love of God‘s word and attention to its detail. See on Jn. 13:18.

15:17 ―The residue of men‖, every single non-Jew, was to be invited to the Kingdom (Acts 15:17).

Every single person whom we can ‗find‘- and the Greek word heurisko is elsewhere translated ‗see,

perceive‘- should be invited by us to the wedding feast (Mt. 22:9). ―As many as‖ [s.w. ―all‖] we can

see or possibly imagine should be invited- so they must surely all be capable of responding. That‘s

the whole point of our being sent to call them.

Acts 15:17 (cp. Am. 9:12) encourages us to preach to the Gentiles ―upon whom my name is [Amos

says ‗has already been‘] called‖. The Name is called upon us by baptism; yet in prospect, in

potential, the Name has already been called upon the whole world. But it is for us to go and convert

them. This explains why Paul is spoken of as having been a convert before he actually was. Paul

was as an ox bound to a yoke, kicking against the goads. But it was as if he was already bound into

Christ‘s light yoke. He wrote that he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. He seems to be

alluding to the practice of branding runaway slaves who had been caught with the letter F in their

forehead, for fugitivus. His whole thinking was dominated by this awareness that like Jonah he had

sought to run, and yet had by grace been received into his Master‘s service. But the figure implies

that he already was a slave of Jesus at the time of his ‗capture‘ in conversion.

15:26 Bearing the name of Christ is in itself an imperative to witness it. Thus ―the name of our Lord

Jesus Christ‖ is used as a metonymy for ‗the preaching of Christ‘ (Acts 15:26; 3 Jn. 7; Mt. 24:9 cp.

14). We are baptized into that Name and thereby it is axiomatic that we become witnesses to it.

15:28- see on Rom. 8:15.

15:29 There is such a thing as compromise in spiritual life. The compromise of Acts 15 about the

demands placed upon the Gentile believers was an example. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write

that the Mosaic food laws had no binding at all upon Christian converts; and yet "it seemed good to

the Holy Spirit" to endorse the compromise reached in Acts 15:28. The laws agreed there as binding

upon the Gentile converts in Acts 15:29 are in fact the so-called Noachic or Primeval Laws,

considered by some orthodox Jews to be binding upon all the sons of Noah. That interpretation of

what God said to Noah is itself stretched and hardly on a solid Biblical foundation- but God was

willing to go along with it in order to make concessions required so that there would at least be

some human chance of unity in the early church. Note that the Western Text [Codex Bezae] of Acts

omits "things strangled", leaving us with three basic laws about idolatry, fornication and bloodshed.

In this case we would see an allusion to an uninspired passage in the Mishnah (Aboth 5) which

taught that the captivity in Babylon came about "on account of idolatry, fornication and bloodshed".

In this case we would see God willing to compromise and accept the terms which were familiar to

the orthodox Jewish minds, rather than merely telling them that their Mishnah was uninspired and

so often hopelessly incorrect.

15:34 A good case can be made that James was written as a follow up to the Council of Jerusalem-

there are some marked similarities [James 1:1 = Acts 15:34; James 2:5 = Acts 15:13; James 2:7 =

Acts 15:17; James 1:27 = Acts 15:29].

15:38 Paul's dislike of Mark was for deeper reasons than just surface irritation. The Spirit in Acts

15:38 says that Paul considered that Mark had not gone with them to the work. This is quoting the

Septuagint of 1 Sam. 30:22, where "all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with

David, said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them ought of the spoil". Why does the

Spirit make this connection? Is it not suggesting that Paul, zealous soldier of David / Jesus as he

was, was in those early days in some sense a man of Belial, bent on achieving his own glory in

preaching, and unwilling to share it with anyone who wasn't spiritually or physically strong enough

to do it as he was (cp. the weaker followers of David)? If this is the case, then this is a far, far cry

from the Paul who wrote his letters some years later, begging Timothy to come to encourage him,

52

and letters in which the care of all the churches weighs down his soul daily, coming upon him as he

woke up each morning (2 Cor. 11:28); the Paul who repeatedly encourages the weak, treating weak

and strong as all the same in many ways, until he eventually attains a level of selfless devotion to

his weak brethren that is only surpassed by the Lord Himself.

15:38- see on Acts 6:1.

15:39- see on 1 Cor. 13:5.

The "contention" between Paul and Barnabas is described in a word which occurs only thrice

elsewhere. In Heb. 10:24, a more mature Paul speaks of how we should consider one another to

"provoke unto love and good works". Surely he wrote this with a sideways glance back at his earlier

example of provoking unto bitterness and division. Likewise he told the Corinthians that he

personally had stopped using the miraculous Spirit gifts so much, but instead concentrated on

developing a character dominated by love, which was not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13:5). The Spirit

seems to have recognized Paul's change, when Acts 17:16 records how Paul's spirit was "stirred" at

the spiritual need of the masses, and thereby he was provoked to preach to them; rather, by

implication, than being provoked by the irritations of weaker brethren.

16:3 There are several examples in the NT of where Paul could have taken a certain course of

action, or insisted on acceptance of a certain doctrinal position, knowing that Truth was on his side.

But he didn't. Thus the council of Jerusalem established that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised,

but straight afterwards Paul circumcised Timothy in Lystra out of consideration to the feelings of

the Jewish believers (Acts 16:1-3). He could have stood on his rights, and on the clear spiritual

principles involved. But he stepped down to the lower level of other believers (e.g. by keeping some

of the redundant Jewish feasts), he made himself all things to all men that he might try to save

some, and by so doing stepped up to the higher level in his own spirituality.

16:5 Acts 16:5 speaks of the congregations growing in number daily- implying baptisms were being

done daily, immediately a candidate was ready (not left to the weekend for convenience!).

16:6 Paul speaks of how he had been given areas in which it was potentially possible for him to

preach in, and he didn‘t enter into those areas which had either already been preached in, or which

were another brother‘s responsibility. This seems to suggest that God does indeed look down from

Heaven and as it were divide up the world amongst those who could preach in it. This is why Paul

perceived that he had been ‗forbidden‘ from preaching in some areas [e.g. Macedonia] and yet a

door was opened to him in Achaia. This language is allusive to the way in which the Lord forbad

Israel to conquer certain areas on their way to the promised land (Dt. 2:37). The point is, between

us, our preaching is a war of conquest for Jesus, pulling down strong holds and fortresses as Paul

put it; or, as Jesus expressed it, taking the Kingdom by force, as stormtroopers.

16:7 Living according to the spirit / mind / example of Jesus will mean that we naturally find the

answers to some of the practical dilemnas which may arise in our lives. Thus we read that when

Paul tried to go to preach in Bithynia ―the spirit of Jesus suffered them not‖ (Acts 16:7 RV). Could

it not be that the spirit of Jesus, a life lived after His pattern, compelled them to (let‘s imagine) go to

visit a sick child and this meant they missed the transport leaving for Bithynia?

16:10 Paul 'assuredly gathered' that "the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them"

(Acts 16:10). The Lord calling is usually used concerning His calling of men to understand and

obey the Gospel. Perhaps Paul is saying that the reason why we are called is to preach, and in this

context he realised that the people he was to preach to, were the Macedonians. He later reminisced:

"As we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak (i.e. preach)" (1

Thess. 2:4).

Paul and the apostles were urgent in their preaching. When Paul received the go ahead to preach in

Macedonia, he ―immediately endeavoured‖ to go there, even not waiting for Titus to join him, such

53

was his urgency (Acts 16:10; 2 Cor. 2:12,13). And the response of people to these urgent preachers

was therefore quick too. Men who began doubting and cynical were pricked in their heart, they

realized their need, and were baptized within hours (Acts 2:12,37).

If we don't shine forth the light, both in the world and in the household, we are not fulfilling the

purpose for which we were called. Perhaps this is the meaning of Acts 16:10, where Luke says that

they preached in Macedonia because they perceived that "the Lord had called us for (in order that)

to preach the gospel (in this case) unto (the Macedonians)". Whether such an interpretation appeals

or not, there are many passages which teach that our salvation will be related to the extent to which

we have held forth the word both to the world and to the household (Prov. 11:3; 24:11,12; Dan.

12:3; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 12:8; Rom. 10:9,10 cp. Jn. 9:22; 12:42; 1:20; 1 Pet. 4:6 Gk.).

16:13 When Paul is described as going ―forth without the gate‖ to preach in Philippi (Acts 16:13

RV), this is the very language of Heb. 13:12 about the Lord going forth without the gate, carrying

the cross, and bidding us follow Him. For Paul, to preach was to carry the cross of Christ, and so it

must be for us.

16:15 The way of the world was that the whole household converted to the religion of the head of

the house. And yet the call of Christ was to individuals. Therefore when we read of whole

households converting (Acts 16:15, 31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:11,16; 16:15 Rom. 16:10) we must

assume that they had resisted the temptation to mass convert, and that Masters had the humility to

not demand of their slaves and family members that they just blindly follow them. This request

would have been axiomatic to their preaching of the Gospel; and yet it would have been a radical

departure from how family heads around them behaved.

16:16 Acts 16:16–18 are the words of Luke, under inspiration: ―a certain damsel possessed with a

spirit of Python met us‖. As explained in the footnote in the Diaglott version, Python was the name

of a false god believed in during the first century, possibly the same as the god Apollo. It was

believed that the ‗spirit‘ of Python took over the ‗immortal soul‘ of the person being possessed.

Seeing that the Bible strongly opposes the idea of an immortal soul, there is no way that a spirit of

Python can possess anyone. So Python definitely did not exist, but Luke does not say the girl was

‗possessed with a spirit of Python, who by the way, is a false god who does not really exist…‘. In

the same way the Gospels do not say that Jesus ‗cast out demons which, by the way, do not really

exist, it is just the language of the day for illnesses‘. The demons cast out of Legion went ―into the

abyss‖ (Lk. 8:31 Gk.); the pagan concept of the abyss is a nonsense, yet if we believe that the record

of Legion‘s cure teaches the existence of demons, then we must logically believe in ‗the abyss‘ too.

16:18 Paul didn‘t allow himself to be irritated. The tragedy of mental illness grieved him; the

tragedy of the way in which some people have an all too partial knowledge of Gods truth. And his

grieving for her didn‘t merely result in him preaching the Gospel to her; he did something concrete

to help cure her.

16:21 In both Thessalonica and Philippi, strong opposition arose to the preaching of the Gospel

because it was held that it was preaching another King, Jesus, in opposition to Caesar, and that the

obligations of this new religion were at variance with the Imperial Cult (Acts 16:21; 17:7). In a

sense, these allegations were true. Christianity taught that the convert became a member of a new,

spiritual Israel. It was irrelevant whether he or she was a Jew, Roman or Gentile. And the convert

had to act inclusively rather than exclusively towards other converts. It must have been hard for a

Roman citizen to willingly become as it were a ‗citizen‘ of ‗spiritual Israel‘, a ‗member‘ of the

despised and captive Jewish race. To not participate in the cult of emperor worship was serious

indeed; Roman citizenship could be lost over this matter. Pliny wrote that Christians were therefore

―unable by temperament or unwilling by conviction to participate in the common activities of a

group or community‖. They were seen as any true living Christian is: a bit weird, unsociable, aloof

from worldly pleasure, and thereby a silent critic of those who indulge. ―The Christian would not

54

attend gladiatorial shows or games or plays. He would not read pagan literature. He would not enlist

as a soldier, for then he would come under orders that might conflict with his standards and with his

loyalty to Jesus Christ. He would not be a painter or sculptor , for that would be to acquiesce to

idolatry. Nor would he be a schoolmaster, for then he would inevitably have to tell the immoral

stories of the pagan gods. The Christian had better steer clear of business contracts, because they

required the taking of oaths, which the Christian abjured. They had better keep out of administrative

office because of the idolatry involved… and so on‖. The Romans considered anyone outside the

Roman world or who rejected Roman manners and laws as being a barbarian; and yet the Gospel

appealed to Roman citizens to reject these very manners and laws. Thus Ramsay comments: ―To the

Romans genus humanum meant not the human race in general but the Roman world, men who lived

according to Roman manners and laws; the rest were enemies and barbarians. The Christians, then,

were enemies to civilised man, and to the customs and laws which regulated civilised society… they

introduced divisions into families and set children against their parents‖.

16:31 A theme of Acts is that the work of the Father and Son are paralleled (e.g. 16:31 cp. 34;

15:12; 26:17 cp. 22). They are working together to achieve our final redemption. The concept is

wondrous.

16:34 Whole households were converted (Acts 10:2; 16:34; 18:8; Col. 4:15), and the earliest

Christian meeting places unearthed were rooms in the homes of rich believers. And with us too, the

success of our community depends upon God‘s Truth first and foremost being the centre of family

life, with the joy of faith permeating it. Household conversions were a major feature of the first

century spread of the Gospel (e.g. Lydia- Acts 16:15; Crispus- Acts 18:8; Priscilla and Aquila-

Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Nymphas- Col. 4:15; Onesiphorus- 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19; Philemon-

Philemon 2; ―the elect lady‖, 2 Jn. 10; the home at Troas- Acts 20:6-8). Clearly ‗house‘ was used in

the first century as a kind of shorthand for ‗house church‘. They knew no other pattern of gathering.

There was almost an assumption that if a man converted to Christ, his ‗house‘ also would. Hence we

read that Cornelius would be told words ―whereby thou and thy house shalt be saved‖ (Acts 11:14).

The same phrase was repeated to the jailor at Philippi (Acts 16:31). It‘s emphasized four times in

three verses that the Gospel was preached to his house, and his whole house responded (Acts 16:31-

34). The Lord likewise rejoiced in Zaccheaus‘ conversion, that salvation had come to that man‘s

house (Lk. 19:9). He assumed that Zacchaeus would quite naturally persuade his ‗house‘.

Consider how the prison keeper "rejoiced greatly… having believed in God" (Acts 16:34 RV). He

was unlikely to have been an atheist [atheism wasn't very common in the 1st century]. But he

grasped for the first time the real import of a real and relevant faith in the one true God as a personal

being. See on Jn. 14:1.

16:37- see on Acts 22:25.

16:40- see on 1 Tim. 5:13.

17:1-9 The simplicity of what Paul preached can be seen from reflecting how he was only three

weekends in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9), but in that time he converted and baptized pagans and

turned them into an ecclesia. Given the long hours worked by people, his number of contact hours

with the people would've been quite small. He then had to write to them in 1 Thessalonians,

addressing basic questions which they had subsequently asked, such as 'What will happen to dead

believers when Christ returns?', 'When will Christ return?'. The level of their instruction before

baptism must have been very basic. It is rare today to see such focus upon the urgency of baptism.

Yet I submit that if we have the spirit of the early church, we will be pushing baptism up front to all

we meet. And this was one of the first century keys to success.

17:2 The speed with which he established ecclesias. He stayed a few weeks or months in cities like

Lystra and Thessalonica, returning, in the case of Lystra, after 18 months, and then again a few

years later. He spent three consecutive sabbaths in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2), baptized the converts,

55

and then didn‘t come back to see them for about five and a half years (Acts 20:1,2). How were they

kept strong? By the good shepherd, by the grace of God, by the Father and Son working with Paul.

He seems to have drilled them with the basics of the Gospel and the life they needed to live,

ordained immature elders who were literate and able to teach the word, and then left them what he

repeatedly calls ―the tradition‖, a document or set of teachings relating to practical life in Christ (1

Cor. 11:2,23; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; 3:14; Tit. 1:9). It was perhaps the

simplicity and brevity of the message that was its strength in the lives of the early converts. Their

lives were based directly upon reflection upon the implications of the basic elements of the Gospel.

It is today amazing how simple men and women remember and reflect upon the things taught them

even verbally, and show an impressive appreciation of them when they are visited again after some

months or years. Interestingly, Corinth had the most evident problems and immaturity, even though

Paul spent 18 months there, whereas ecclesias like Philippi which he established far quicker seem to

have been far sounder. It therefore follows that length of pastoral work is not necessarily related to

spiritual strengt

17:3- see on Acts 13:24,25.

Paul could tell the Galatians that in him they had seen Jesus Christ placarded forth, crucified before

their own eyes (3:1). Paul knew that when people looked at his life, they saw something of the

crucifixion of the Lord. The Galatians therefore accepted him "even as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:14). He

could describe his own preaching as ―this Jesus, whom I preach unto you…‖ (Acts 17:3), as if Jesus

was right there before their eyes, witnessed through Paul. As the Lord was Paul‘s representative, so

Paul was Christ‘s. The idea of representation works both ways: we see in the Gospel records how

the Lord experienced some things which only we have; and we show aspects of His character to the

world which nobody else can manifest.

17:4 First of all there must be an intellectual understanding if there is to be conversion. Men were

―persuaded‖, not just emotionally bullied (Acts 17:4; 18:4; 19:8,26; 28:23,24). The intellectual basis

of appeal is made clear in the way we read of accepting ‗truth‘ as well as accepting the person of

Jesus. Thus converts believe the truth (2 Thess. 2:10-13), acknowledge truth (2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 1:1),

obey truth (Rom. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:22 cp. Gal. 5:7), and ‗come to know the truth‘ (Jn. 8:32; 1 Tim. 2:4;

4:3; 1 Jn. 2:21). Preaching itself is ‗the open statement of the truth‘ (2 Cor. 4:2). And so it is

perfectly in order to seek to intellectually persuade our contacts.

Paul had to remind the Thessalonians that he isn't preaching because he wants to take money and

have relationships with women (1 Thess. 2:3-12). There were some wealthy women in Thessalonica

who accepted the Gospel (Acts 17:4 Western Text), and no doubt gossip spread from this. See on 1

Tim. 5:19.

17:7- see on Acts 16:21.

Paul in the face of every discouragement could preach that ―there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts

17:7). This was the core of his message; not so much that there will be a coming King in Jerusalem,

but that there is right now a King at God‘s right hand, who demands our total allegiance. The Acts

record associates the height of Jesus with a call to repentance too. This is the message of Is. 55:6-9-

because God's thoughts are so far higher than ours, therefore call upon the Lord whilst He is near,

and let the wicked forsake his way. Because the Father and Son who are so high above us morally

and physically are willing to deal with us, therefore we ought to seize upon their grace and repent.

17:12- see on Lk. 8:3.

―Not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men‖ were converted in Thessalonica (Acts

17:12 RSV). Lydia was a wealthy woman, trading in luxury garments (―purple‖), and a female head

of household. The attraction of the Gospel for wealthy women has been often commented upon in

the historical literature. We are left to imagine wealthy sisters marrying poorer brethren, or

56

remaining single, with all the scandal attached to it in the first century world, pining for children,

comforted only by each other and the surpassing knowledge of Jesus their Lord.

17:16- see on Acts 15:39.

17:17 Paul says himself that he was not an eloquent speaker; and the Corinthians were acutely

aware of this. And yet it was through his public speaking that many were converted in places like

Athens (Acts 17:17). The lesson is clear- God uses us in our weaker points in order to witness

powerfully for Him. Uneducated Peter was used as the vehicle with which to reach the intelligentsia

of Jerusalem- and you and I likewise in and through our very points of weakness are likewise used

to reach people.

17:18 It is clear that we are to seek to relate to our audience in a way they can relate to. Using their

terms, shewing our common binds with them. Paul did this when he was faced with the rather

mocking comment that he was a ―setter forth‖ of a strange God. He replied that he ‗set forth‘ to

them the One whom they ignorantly worshipped (Acts 17:18,23 RV). He seized upon something

they all knew- the altar to the unknown God- and made his point to them from that. And he picked

up the noun they used for him and turned it back to them as a verb.

17:23 Paul‘s positivism is a wonderful thing to study. When he met people believing in ―the

unknown (Gk. agnosto] God‖, he didn‘t mock their agnosticism. He rejoiced that they were as it

were half way there, and sought to take them further. His position regarding the Sabbath and

observance of the Law is a prime example of his patient seeking to bring men onward.

17:24- see on Mt. 6:29.

17:26 Adam was the first man, and Eve was the mother of all living human beings. From one blood

all were created (Acts 17:26).

17:27 God "hath made of one blood all nations of men... and hath determined the times before

appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that (so that) they should seek the Lord" (Acts

17:26,27). How does geographical distribution etc. lead to men seeking the Lord?

We must draw near to Him (Ps. 73:28); and yet He is already near, not far from every one of us

(Acts 17:27). David often speaks of drawing near to God, and yet he invites God to draw near to

him (Ps. 69:18). Yet David also recognizes that God ―is‖ near already (Ps. 75:1). I take all this to

mean that like us, David recognized that God ―is‖ near, and yet wished God to make His presence

real to him. Truly can we pray David‘s prayers. So often, prayer is described as coming near to God

(Ps. 119:169 etc.)- and yet God ―is‖ near already. Prayer, therefore, is a way of making us realize

the presence of the God who is always present.

17:28 Many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament- many of those in the early chapters of

Matthew, for example- are picking up words and phrases from one context and applying them to

another, often slightly changing them in order to fit the new context. Paul himself did this when he

quoted the words of the poet Aratus ―We are all the offspring of Zeus‖ about our all being the

offspring of the one true God.

Paul quoted from Greek poets, famous for the amount of unbiblical nonsense they churned out, in

order to confound those who believed what the poets taught (Tit. 1:12; Acts 17:28). What we are

suggesting is epitomized by Paul‘s response to finding an altar dedicated to the worship of ―The

Unknown God‖, i.e. any pagan deity which might exist, but which the people of Athens had

overlooked. Instead of rebuking them for their folly in believing in this, Paul took them from where

they were to understand the one true God, who they did not know (Acts 17:22–23).

Paul sought by all means to close the gap which there inevitably is between the preacher and his

audience. Thus in Athens and Lystra he mixes quotes from the Greek poets with clear allusions to

God‘s word. His speeches in those places quote from Epimenides and Aratus, allude to the

57

Epicurean belief that God needs nothing from men, refer to the Stoic belief that God is the source of

all life… and also allude to a whole catena of OT passages: Ex. 20:11; Gen. 8:22; Ecc. 9:7; Jer.

5:24; 23:23; Is. 42:5; 55:6; Ps. 50:12; 145:18; 147:8; Dt. 32:8. This was all very skilfully done;

surely Paul had sat down and planned what he was going to say. He tries to have as much common

ground as possible with his audience whilst at the same time undermining their position. He wasn‘t

baldly telling them their errors and insisting on his own possession of truth; even though this was

the case. He didn‘t remove the essential scandal of the Gospel; instead Paul selected terms with

which to present it which enabled his hearers to realize and face the challenges which the scandal of

the Gospel presented. And Paul‘s sensitive approach to the Jews is just the same. If we are out to

convert men and women, we will be ever making our message relevant. If we tell the world, both

explicitly and implicitly, that we don‟t want to convert them, then we won‟t. If we want to convert

them, if we earnestly seek to persuade them and vary our language and presentation accordingly,

then we will.

17:29 If we truly realize that we are made in God‘s image, then we will not worship any idol:

―Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God [i.e. in His image], we ought not to think that the

Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man‘s device‖ (Acts 17:29).

Thinking this through, is the implication not that humanity alone is made in God‘s image; nothing

else is His image. Yet idolatry, in all its forms and guises throughout history, is based around the

supposition that those idols are in fact an image of God and as such demand worship. God has

revealed Himself through people, not through things which they have created.

17:30- see on Mt. 24:14.

Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14). Baptism saves us ―by the resurrection of

Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21 cp. Rom. 4:25; Col. 2:13). We who were dead in sins were ―quickened

together with Christ" (Eph. 2:5). If we believe in Christ‘s resurrection, we will therefore repent,

confess our sins and know His forgiveness. Thus believing in His raising and making confession of

sin are bracketed together in Rom. 10:9,10, as both being essential in gaining salvation. Because He

rose, therefore we stop committing sin (1 Cor. 6:14). We can‘t wilfully sin if we believe in the

forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because judgment day is

coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered / inspired faith in His

forgiveness by the resurrection of Christ (Acts 17:30,31 AV mg.). The empty tomb and all the

Lord‘s glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as well as of itself

being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing for them to repent

and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them by the resurrection.

Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own. We are therefore born

again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identifcation with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1

Pet. 1:3).

The very fact that judgment day will surely come is therefore in itself a command to all men to

repent (Acts 17:30,31)- and therefore it is a command to preach repentance.

17:31 The resurrection of Jesus was to give assurance ―to all men‖ (Acts 17:31). But how? They

haven‘t seen Him. There is no Euclidean reason for them to believe in His resurrection. How is it an

assurance to all men? Surely in that we are the risen Lord‘s representatives ―to all men‖, and

through us they see the evidence of Christ risen, and thereby have assurance of God‘s plan for them.

In the same way, the wicked and adulterous generation to whom the Lord witnessed were given the

sign of the prophet Jonah- that after three days, the Lord would re-appear. But that sign was only

given to them through the preaching of the apostles- that generation didn‘t see the risen Lord

Himself (Mt. 16:4). But the witness of the disciples was as good as- for in their witness, they

represented the Lord.

58

On account of the Lord‘s resurrection, God has commanded all men everywhere to repent (Acts

17:30,31)- again, a reference to the great commission. But God‘s command of men to repent is only

through our preaching of that message. Matthew and Mark record how the apostles were sent to

preach the Gospel and baptize, for the forgiveness of sins (cp. Acts 2:38). Luke records the Lord

stating that the apostles knew that forgiveness of sins was to be preached from Jerusalem, and

therefore they should be witnesses to this.

Acts 17:31 reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as

judge of living and dead is a command to repent. At the Lord's resurrection, a day was appointed for

human judgment, and therefore a knowledge of the Lord's resurrection means we are accountable to

that day, and must therefore repent and prepare. It is by this logic that Paul argues that the Lord's

resurrection is a guarantee that judgment day will come. "For to this end Christ both died and rose

and revived, that he might be Lord... [which involves that] we shall all [therefore] stand before the

judgment seat of Christ. For it is written... Every knee shall bow to me [as Lord and judge]..." (Rom.

14:9,10).

We will be judged in the man Christ Jesus (Acts 17:31 R.V. Mg.). This means that the very fact

Jesus didn't pre-exist and was human makes Him our constant and insistent judge of all our human

behaviour. And exactly because of this, Paul argues, we should right now repent. He is judge

exactly because He is the Son of man.

17:34 Men heard Paul‘s preaching and ‗clave‘ unto him, as they did to other preachers (Acts 17:34;

5:13); but conversion is a cleaving unto the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:23; 1 Cor. 6:17 Gk.). Thus Paul

―spoke boldly in the Lord [Jesus], which gave testimony unto the word of his grace‖ (Acts 14:3). To

this extent does the preacher manifest his Lord.

18:4 According to the Western text of Acts 18:4, Paul "inserted the name of the Lord Jesus" at the

appropriate points in his public reading of the Old Testament prophecies. This was after the pattern

of some of the Jewish targums (commentaries) on the prophets, which inserted the word "Messiah"

at appropriate points in Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant (e.g. the Targum of Jonathan on

the Prophets).

18:4,5 Acts 18:4,5 implies that when Paul first came to Corinth, he concentrated on his tent making

business, and confined his preaching to arguing with the Jews at synagogue on the Sabbath. But

when Silas and Timothy came, their presence made him "pressed in the spirit" to launch an all-out

campaign. No longer was he the self-motivated maverick. He needed the presence of others to stir

up his mind and prod him onwards. He admitted to those he converted in Corinth as a result of this

campaign that such preaching was against his will, he had had to consciously make himself do it (1

Cor. 9:17). Indeed, the Lord Jesus Himself had had to appear to Paul in a vision and encourage him

not to suppress his preaching on account of his fear of persecution (Acts 18:9). Therefore he later

told the Corinthians that he feared condemnation if he gave in to his temptation not to preach (1

Cor. 9:16). See on Acts 27:21.

18:5 In Corinth, ―Paul was constrained by the word, testifying to the Jews…‖ (Acts 18:5 RV). The

AV has ―pressed in the spirit‖; knowing the Lord‘s word somehow compelled Paul to testify of it.

18:6 "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles"

(Acts 18:6) seems to also be a flash of unspirituality. For later, Paul realizes that he may be

condemned if he doesn't preach the Gospel; he realized that he perhaps wasn't free of his duty of

preaching. Yet for all his "from henceforth I go unto the Gentiles" , Paul still preached to the Jews

(Acts 18:8; 19:8); which would suggest these words were said in temper and perhaps unwisdom. He

himself seems to recognize this when he wrote to Timothy at the very end of his life of how we

must with meekness instruct those who oppose themselves (2 Tim. 2:25), whereas his own response

to those who ―opposed themselves‖ (Acts 18:6) had been to say, without meekness, that he was

never going to ‗instruct‘ Jews ever again.

59

18:6 The idea of being a watchman seems to have fired his preaching zeal, Ez. 3:18; 18:13 cp. Acts

18:6; 20:26.

18:9- see on Acts 18:4,5; 1 Cor. 8:9.

18:9,10 This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures [here Is.

43:5] are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

18:16 "Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way

be dark (cp. the rejected cast to outer darkness) and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute

them" (Ps. 35:5,6). "The ungodly are like the chaff which the wind (spirit- the Angels made spirits)

driveth away" (Ps. 1:4; Job 21:18). The account of Gallio driving the Jews away from his judgment

seat is maybe to enable to us to imagine the scene (Acts 18:16).

18:18 Paul was called to be a preacher of the Gospel, and yet he speaks of his work as a preacher as

if it were a Nazarite vow- which was a totally voluntary commitment. Consider not only the

reference to him shaving his head because of his vow (Acts 18:18; 21:24 cp. Num. 6:9-18), but also

the many descriptions of his preaching work in terms of Nazariteship: Separated unto the Gospel‘s

work (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:15; Acts 13:2); ―I am not yet consecrated / perfected‖ (Phil. 3:12)- he‘d not

yet finished his ‗course‘, i.e. his preaching commission. He speaks of it here as if it were a Nazarite

vow not yet ended. Note the reference to his ‗consecration‘ in Acts 20:24. His undertaking not to

drink wine lest he offend others (Rom. 14:21) is framed in the very words of Num. 6:3 LXX about

the Nazarite. Likewise his being ‗joined unto the Lord‘ (1 Cor. 6:17; Rom. 14:6,8) is the language

of Num. 6:6 about the Nazarite being separated unto the Lord. The reference to having power /

authority on the head (1 Cor. 11:10) is definitely some reference back to the LXX of Num. 6:7

about the Nazarite. What are we to make of all this? The point is perhaps that commitment to active

missionary work is indeed a voluntary matter, as was the Nazarite vow. And that even although Paul

was called to this, yet he responded to it by voluntarily binding himself to ‗get the job done‘. And

the same is in essence true for us today in our various callings in the Lord‘s service.

18:27 Apollos ―helped them much which had believed through grace: for he mightily convinced the

Jews, showing publicly by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ‖ (Acts 18:27,28 RVmg.). He

helped / inspired the other believers in that he publicly converted others; thus an upward spiral of

converting was initiated.

19:8- see on Acts 18:6; Lk. 1:14.

19:9 Paul preached in Ephesus from 11a.m. to 4 p.m. (Acts 19:9 Western text)- the siesta period.

Whilst working with his own hands to support himself, he somehow persuaded men and women to

break their usual sleep pattern to come and hear him. F.F. Bruce has commented that more

Ephesians were awake at 1a.m. than 1 p.m.

19:9 First century preaching wasn‘t merely bald statement of facts nor a pouty presentation of

propositional Truth. A very wide range of words is used to describe the preaching of the Gospel. It

included able intellectual argument, skilful, thoughtful use and study of the Scriptures by the public

speakers, careful, closely reasoned and patient argument. Their preaching is recorded through words

like diamarturesthai , to testify strenuously, elegcho, to show to be wrong, peitho, to win by

words,ekithemi, to set forth, diamar, to bear full witness, dianoigo, to open what was previously

closed, parrhesia, to speak with fearless candour, katagellein, to proclaim forcefully, dialegesthai,

to argue, diakatelenchein, to confute powerfully. The intellectual energy of Paul powers through the

narrative in passages like Acts 19: ―disputing and persuading… disputing daily… Paul purposed in

the spirit… this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people‖.

19:18,19 After seeing what happened to the sons of Sceva, it would appear that some who had

‗believed‘ went up to a higher level of commitment: ―Many also of them that had believed came,

confessing and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their

60

books together, and burned them‖ (Acts 19:18,19 RV). This would seem to imply that despite

having ‗believed‘, perhaps with the same level of shallow conviction as some ‗believed‘ in the

teaching of Jesus during His ministry, their faith wasn‘t so deep. They were taken up to an

altogether higher level of commitment, resulting in ‗confessing and declaring‘, and quitting their

involvement with magic. ―Many that were now believers" there (RSV) "came and confessed and

shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and

burned them before all men... so mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed" (Acts 19:18,19).

The language here seems to be intended to connect with the description of baptism in Mt. 3:6, where

converts confessed and shewed their deeds at baptism. The way the Ephesians made their statement

"before all men" again recalls the concept of baptism as a public declaration. Yet the Ephesians did

all this after they had believed. It would seem that we are being invited to consider this as a re-

conversion, a step up the ladder. The context is significant. Some who had pretended to be believers

and to have the Holy Spirit are revealed for who they are: "they fled out of that house naked and

wounded. And this was known to all... dwelling at Ephesus. And fear fell on them all, and the name

of the Lord Jesus was magnified". The fact that the Lord Jesus is so essentially demanding, the way

in which ultimately He will judge insincere profession of His Name- this motivated the new

Ephesian converts to take their relationship with Him seriously (compare how the Lord's slaying of

Ananias and Sapphira also inspired a great desire to associate with Him, Acts 5:11-14).

19:21 Paul said that he was going to Jerusalem, "Saying, After I have been there, I must also see

Rome" (Acts 19:21). But actually he had written to the Romans that he would drop in to see them

on his way to Spain (Rom. 15:23). Spain was his real ambition, to preach the Gospel in "the regions

beyond" (2 Cor. 10:16 and context)- not Rome. But Acts 19:21 gives the impression that Rome was

the end of his vision.

19:28 There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him

because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later

on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on.

An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's

furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years

ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several

times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame"

(Prov. 12:16); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (Prov. 14:35). Or consider 1 Sam.

20:34: "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the

month... because his father had done him shame". Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that

ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (Job 19:3). Frequently the rejected are

threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be

connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (Ps. 109:28). The

final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their

everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (Jer. 20:11). Seeing they will be long dead and gone,

it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout

our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's

preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow

thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the

Ephesians" (Acts 19:27,28). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too.

For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (Rom.

2:23); we despise his desire for our repentance (Rom. 2:4).

19:31 In Paul‘s inspired thought, on the cross the Lord ―gave himself‖ for us (Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6;

Tit. 2:14). And yet he uses the same Greek words to describe how are to ‗give ourselves‘ for our

brethren (2 Thess. 3:9), to ‗give ourselves‘ in financial generosity to their needs (2 Cor. 8:5), and in

Acts 19:31 we meet the same phrase describing how Paul ‗gave himself‘ into the theatre at Ephesus,

filled with people bent on killing him, taking the conscious choice to risk his life in order to share

61

the Gospel with others. In this I see a cameo of how the choice of preaching the Gospel is in fact a

conscious living out of the Lord‘s example on the cross. Paul was discouraged from doing so by his

friends and brethren; and yet surely he had his mind on the way the Lord ‗gave himself‘ for us in

His death, as a conscious choice, and so he brushed aside his reserve, that human desire to do what

appears the sensible, safe option… in order to bring others to the cross of Christ. And day by day we

have the same choice before us.

20:10 A cameo of Paul‘s attitude is presented when Eutychus falls down from the window; Paul

likewise runs down afterwards and falls on him, on the blood and broken bones (Acts 20:9,10). The

language of Paul‘s descent and falling upon Eutychus and Eutychus‘ own fall from the window are

so similar. Surely the point is, that Paul had a heart that bled for that man, that led him to identify

with him.

Believe that you really will receive; avoid the temptation of asking for things as a child asks for

Christmas presents, with the vague hope that something might turn up. Be like Paul, who fell upon

the smashed body of Eutychus with the assurance: "Trouble not yourselves [alluding to his Lord in

the upper room]; for his life is in him" (Acts 20:10).

20:18- see on 2 Tim. 4:2,3.

20:19- see on Lk. 3:5.

20:19,20 "Serving the Lord with all humility of mind" (Acts 20:19). "I kept back nothing that was

profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly" (Acts 20:20). "Of your

own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things" (Acts 20:30). These are allusions to Moses.

"The man Moses was very meek" (Num. 12:3). The humility of Moses really fired Paul. As Moses

shewed God to Israel and publicly taught them. As Moses likewise warned in his farewell speech

that false prophets would arise - and should be shunned and dealt with (Dt. 13:1).

20:20 Paul reminisced how he had taught that ecclesia both publicly, and from house to house (Acts

20:20). Luke used the same phrase ―house to house‖ in Acts 2:46 to describe house churches. Surely

Paul was recalling how he had taught the Ephesian church both ―publicly‖, when they were all

gathered together, and also in their house churches. Aquila had a house church in Ephesus (1 Cor.

16:19), and so did Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16,18; 4:19). Another indication of this structure within

the Ephesian church is to be found in considering how Paul wrote to Timothy with advice, whilst

Timothy was leading that church. Paul advises him not to permit sisters to wander about ―from

house [church] to house [church]‖ carrying ecclesial gossip (1 Tim. 5:13).

20:20 - see on 2 Tim. 4:2,3.

20:21- see on Acts 13:24,25.

20:22 Consider the following passages in the Spirit's biography of Paul: "Now while Paul waited for

them at Athens, his spirit was stirred within him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry" and

therefore he preached to them (Acts 17:16). In Corinth, "Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified

to the Jews that Jesus was Christ" (Acts 18:5). "Now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto

Jerusalem" (Acts 20:22) is difficult to divorce from the previous passages. It may be that the Holy

Spirit confirmed the desire of Paul's own spirit; but I am tempted to read this as yet one more

example of where he felt overwhelmingly compelled to witness. "Paul purposed in the spirit... to go

to Jerusalem, saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome" (Acts 19:21). It was as if his

own conscience, developed within him by the word and his experience of the Lord Jesus, compelled

him to take the Gospel right to the ends of his world. His ambition for Spain, at a time when most

men scarcely travelled 100km. from their birthplace, is just superb (Rom. 15:24,28).

20:26 We are covered with His righteousness, and therefore have a share in His victory; and yet it

also means that we must act as He did and does. Paul felt so truly and absolutely forgiven that he

could say that he was ―pure from the blood of all men‖ (Acts 20:26). Yet as he said that, he must

62

surely have had the blood of Stephen on his mind, trickling out along the Palestinian dust, as the

clothes of the men who murdered Stephen lay at Paul‘s feet as a testimony that he was responsible

for it. But he knew his forgiveness. He could confidently state that he was pure from that blood.

Righteousness had been imputed, the sin covered- because he was in Christ.

20:27 To help them combat this apostacy, and to set them an example in faithfulness to the word,

Paul pointed out that "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

Exactly as Moses completely revealed all God's counsel to Israel (Acts 7:33; Dt. 33:3).

20:28 "Take heed to yourselves; if thy brother trespass... forgive him" (Lk. 17:3) is alluded to in

Acts 20:28, where Paul says we should take heed of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what

he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be

tempted not to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'.

―Take heed therefore unto yourselves" (Acts 20:28). "Take heed unto yourselves" is repeated so

many times in Deuteronomy (e.g . Dt. 2:4; 4:9,15,23; 11:16; 12:13,19,30; 24:8; 27:9).

Note how the episkopoi were overseers in the flock, not over it (Acts 20:28 Gk. cp. AV).

20:29- see on 2 Tim. 4:2,3.

Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing", Acts 20:29) there would be

serious apostasy. This is the spirit of his very last words, in 2 Tim. 4. This is exactly the spirit of

Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (Dt.

32). "After my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves" (Dt. 31:29). "Take heed unto yourselves" is

repeated so many times in Deuteronomy (e.g . Dt. 2:4; 4:9,15,23; 11:16; 12:13,19,30; 24:8; 27:9).

Exactly as Moses completely revealed all God's counsel to Israel (Acts 7:33; Dt. 33:3).

20:23- see on Acts 21:4.

Philip prophesied by the Holy Spirit about Paul: ―So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that

owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hand of the Gentiles‖. They ―shall‖ do this, he

said. And many other prophets said the same (Acts 20:23). ―And when we heard these things, both

we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem‖ (Acts 21:11,12). Those brethren

evidently understood the word of prophecy as conditional- its‘ fulfilment could be avoided by Paul

not going to Jerusalem. Indeed, there were prophecies that said he should not go up to Jerusalem

(Acts 21:4). Yet Paul went, knowing that if he died at Jerusalem then the will of God would be done

(Acts 21:14). All this surely shows that prophecies are open to human interpretation; they can be

seen as commandment (e.g. not to go to Jerusalem), but it all depends upon our perception of the

wider picture.

20:24- see on Acts 18:18; 28:31; 2 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:7.

20:26- see on Acts 18:6.

By preaching, they were freed from the blood of men (20:26); evidently alluding to how the

watchman must die if he didn‘t warn the people of their impending fate (Ez. 3:18). In line with this,

―necessity is laid upon me… woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel‖ (1 Cor. 9:16).

20:28 I want to put two passages from Paul together in your minds. He tells the Ephesian elders to

―take heed to yourselves‖ before adding ―and to all the flock‖ (Acts 20:28). To Timothy likewise:

―Take heed to yourself, and to your teaching [of others]‖ (1 Tim. 4:16). Clearly enough, Paul saw

that who we are is related to the effectiveness of our preaching. The preacher is some sort of

reproduction of the Truth in a personal form; the word made flesh. The Truth must exist in us as a

living experience, a glorious enthusiasm, an intense reality. For it is primarily people who

communicate, not words or ideas. Personal authenticity is undoubtedly the strongest credential in

our work of communicating the message.

63

There are several NT passages which make an explicit link between God and Jesus in the context of

the salvation of men. Phrases such as ―God our Saviour, Jesus..." are relatively common in the

pastorals (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Tit. 1:3,4; 2:10 cp. 13 and see also Jude 24; 2 Pet. 1:1). Acts 20:28 even

speaks as if God‘s blood was shed on the cross; through ‗His‘ blood the church was purchased; and

yet Paul told the very same Ephesian audience that it was through the blood of Jesus that the church

was purchased (Eph. 1:6,7); such was the extent of God manifestation on the cross. These and many

other passages quoted by trinitarians evidently don‘t mean that ‗Jesus = God‘ in the way they take

them to mean. But what they are saying is that there was an intense unity between the Father and

Son in the work of salvation achieved on the cross. The High Priest on the day of Atonement

sprinkled the blood eastwards, on the mercy seat. He would therefore have had to walk round to

God's side of the mercy seat and sprinkle the blood back the way he had come. This would have

given the picture of the blood coming out from the presence of God Himself; as if He was the

sacrifice. See on Jn. 19:19.

Exactly because Christ died for us, because the ecclesia has been purchased with the Lord's blood,

we are to seek to feed it and not draw men away after ourselves (Acts 20:28,29). This means that the

fact Jesus died to redeem the whole ecclesia should lead us to value and care for those whom He has

redeemed.

20:29,30 Paul told the Ephesian elders that wolves would enter the flock and work havoc. But

therefore, he told them, ―take heed...‖ (Acts 20:29,30). His prophecy, certain of fulfilment as it

sounded, didn‘t ‗have‘ to come true. Likewise the Lord categorically foretold Peter‘s denials; and

yet tells him therefore to watch, and not fall into the temptation that was looming. Peter didn‘t have

to fulfil the prophecy, and the Lord encouraged him to leave it as an unfulfilled, conditional

prophecy. He warns him to pray ―lest ye enter into temptation‖ (Mk. 14:38)- even though He had

prophesied that Peter would fail under temptation.

20:31 The Biblical record contains a large number of references to the frequent tears of God‘s

people, both in bleeding hearts for other people, and in recognition of their own sin. And as we have

seen, these things are related. Consider:

- ―My eye pours out tears to God‖ [i.e. in repentance?] (Job 16:20)

- Isaiah drenches Moab with tears (Is. 16:9)

- Jeremiah is a fountain of tears for his people (Jer. 9:1; Lam. 2:8)

- David‘s eyes shed streams of tears for his sins (Ps. 119:136; 6:6; 42:3)

- Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Mt. 23:37)

- Blessed are those who weep (Lk. 6:21)

- Mary washed the Lord‘s feet with her tears (Lk. 7:36-50)

- Paul wept for the Ephesians daily (Acts 20:19,31).

We have to ask whether there are any tears, indeed any true emotion, in our walk with our Lord.

Those who go through life with dry eyes are surely to be pitied. Surely, in the light of the above

testimony, we are merely hiding behind a smokescreen if we excuse ourselves by thinking that

we‘re not the emotional type. Nobody can truly go through life humming to themselves ―I am a

rock, I am an island…and an island never cries‖. The very emotional centre of our lives must be

touched. The tragedy of our sin, the urgency of the world‘s salvation, the amazing potential

provided and secured in the cross of Christ…surely we cannot be passive to these things. We live in

a world where emotion and passion are decreasing. Being politically correct, looking right to

others… these things are becoming of paramount importance in all levels of society. The

passionless, postmodernist life can‘t be for us, who have been moved and touched at our very core

by the work and call and love of Christ to us. For us there must still be what Walter Brueggemann

called ―the gift of amazement‖, that ability to feel and say ―Wow!‖ to God‘s grace and plan of

salvation for us.

64

Acts 20:28-31 records Paul predicting the apostacy that was to come upon Ephesus; but he pleads

with the elders to take heed and watch, so that his inspired words needn‘t come true.

20:32- see on Mt. 25:34.

20:33 "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel" (Acts 20:33). This is the spirit of Moses

in Num. 16:15: "I have not taken one ass from them". Paul maybe had these words in mind again in

2 Cor. 7:2: " We have wronged no man... we have defrauded no man".

20:34 Paul told those Ephesian elders, beset as they already were with the evident beginnings of

apostasy: "These hands (showing them) have ministered unto my necessities... I have shewed you

all things, how that so labouring ye (too) ought to support the weak (implying Paul worked at tent

making not only for his own needs but in order to give support to the spiritually (?) weak), and to

(also) remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to

receive" (Acts 20:34,35). Paul seems to be unashamedly saying that those words of Jesus had

motivated his own life of service, and he had shown the Ephesians, in his own life, how they ought

to be lived out; and he placed himself before them as their pattern. The Lord Jesus recognized, years

later, that the Ephesians had followed Paul's example of labouring motivated by Christ as he had

requested them to; but they had done so without agape love (Rev. 2:3,4).

20:35 Paul reminds the Ephesians to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said..."; not,

'how it is written' (for the Gospels were in circulation by this time). He jogged their memory of one

of the texts they ought to have memorized (Acts 20:35). See on Acts 6:4.

21:4- see on Acts 20:23.

Paul was clearly told by the Spirit that he ―should not go up to Jerusalem‖ (Acts 21:4). Yet Paul

chose to go up to Jerusalem, with the Holy Spirit warning him against it in every city he passed

through (Acts 20:23; 21:11). What are we to make of this? Was a spiritual man like Paul simply out

of step with the Spirit on this point? Maybe- in the light of all we've seen above. It‘s possible to get

fixated on a certain project and ignore God‘s clear testimony. Or it could be that Paul knew the Lord

well enough to realize that although God was telling him what would happen, he could still exercise

his own love for his brethren to the maximum extent. For it was for love of his brethren and his

dream of unity between Jew and Gentile that he personally took the offerings of the Gentiles to the

poor saints in Jerusalem.

21:7- see on Acts 4:23.

21:8- see on 1 Cor. 7:17.

21:11,12- see on Acts 20:23; 21:4.

21:13 "Why make ye this ado and weep?" (Mk. 5:39) is unconsciously alluded to by Paul in Acts

21:13: "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart?". If this is a conscious allusion, it seems

out of context. But as an unconscious allusion, it makes sense.

21:14- see on Acts 20:23.

Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in mind in their

sufferings, as we can also do (Acts 21:14 = Mk. 14:36).

21:15 Paul took up his baggage at Ephesus and went on to Jerusalem (Acts 21:15 RV); the baggage

would have been the bits and pieces raised by the donors to the Jerusalem Poor Fund. Those who

couldn‘t send money had sent what little they could spare in kind- presumably clothes and even

animals, or goods for re-sale in Jerusalem.

21:17 Luke was a Gentile (so Col. 4:11 implies). Note how the other Gospel writers speak of the sea

of Galilee, whereas the more widely travelled Luke refers to it only as a lake. While Paul was in

prison in Caesarea for two years, Luke was a free man (Acts 21:17; 24:27). It seems that during that

65

period, Luke may have spent the time travelling around the areas associated with Jesus,

interviewing eye witnesses- especially Mary, the aged mother of Jesus, from whom he must have

obtained much of the information about His birth and Mary‘s song. His preaching of the Gospel in

Luke and Acts is made from his perspective- the fact that salvation is for all, not just Jews, is a

major theme (Lk. 2:30-32; 3:6; 9:54,55; 10:25-34; Acts 1:8; 2:17).

21:19-24- see on Gal. 2:12.

21:20- see on Acts 8:1.

21:24- see on Acts 18:18.

21:27 God has recorded Paul's life in Acts is done in such a way as to show the similarities between

him and Christ; thus the Spirit records that men "laid hands on" Paul (Acts 21:27), just as it does

concerning the Lord Jesus (Mt. 26:50).

21:39 ―I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city‖ (Acts 21:39) seems rather

proud, especially when we learn that Tarsus was famed for being a proud city. She inscribed upon

her coins: ―Tarsus, the Metropolis, First, Fairest and Best‖ (W. Barclay, Ambassador For Christ p.

25).

22:3 It is quite possible that Paul heard most of the speeches recorded in the Gospels, and saw many

of the miracles. The reason is as follows. Every faithful Jew would have been in Jerusalem to keep

the feasts three times per year. Jesus and Paul were therefore together in Jerusalem three times /

year, throughout Christ's ministry. It can be demonstrated that many of the miracles and speeches of

Jesus occurred around the feast times, in Jerusalem. Therefore I estimate that at least 70% of the

content of the Gospels (including John) Paul actually saw and heard 'live'. Another indirect reason

for believing that Paul had met and heard Jesus preaching is from the fact that Paul describes

himself as having been brought up as a Pharisee, because his father had been one (Acts 23:6).

Martin Hengel has shown extensive evidence to believe that the Pharisees only really operated in

Palestine, centred in Jerusalem, where Paul was ―brought up‖ at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).

Hengel also shows that ―brought up‖ refers to training from a young child. So whilst Paul was born

in Tarsus, he was really a Jerusalem boy. Almost certainly he would have heard and known much

about Jesus; his father may even have been amongst those who persecuted the Lord. See Martin

Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: S.C.M., 1991).

Paul says he was "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" by Gamaliel,

receiving the highest wisdom possible in the Jewish world; but he uses the same word as Stephen in

Acts 7:22, describing how Moses was "learned" in all the wisdom of Egypt. Remember he heard

Stephen‘s speech live. Paul felt that he too had been through Moses' experience- once mighty in

words as the rising star of the Jewish world, but now like Moses he had left all that behind in order

to try to save a new Israel from Judaism and paganism. As Moses consciously rejected the

opportunity for leading the 'world' of Egypt, so Paul probably turned down the chance to be High

Priest. God maybe confirmed both him and Moses in their desire for humility by giving them a

speech impediment (the " thorn in the flesh" which Paul was "given", 2 Cor. 12:7?).

22:4- see on Acts 26:10,11.

22:5 Paul was called ―brother‖ even before his baptism, and even after his baptism, he refers to the

Jews as his ―brethren‖ (Acts 22:5,13). Of course, he knew all about the higher status and meaning of

brotherhood in Christ; but he wasn‘t so pedantic as to not call the Jews his ‗brethren‘. He clearly

didn‘t have any of the guilt-by-association paranoia, and the associated standoffishness it brings

with it, which have so hamstrung our witness to the world.

22:6 In the same way as Paul would've been trained to write and present an encomium [see on Gal.

1:10], so he would've been trained in the rhetoric of how to make a public defence speech. There

was a set format for defending oneself, as there was for the encomium. And in his defence speeches

66

recorded in Acts, Paul again follows the accepted order of defence speeches- but his content was

absolutely radical for the first century mind. Quinitilian in his Instructions To Orators laid down

five sections for such a speech- and Paul follows that pattern exactly. There was to be the exordium

[opening statement], a statement of facts (narratio), the proof (probatio), the refutation (refutatio)

and the concluding peroration. The speeches were intended to repeatedly remind the judges of what

in fact was the core issue- and Paul does this when he stresses that he is on trial (krinomai) for "the

hope of the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6; 24:21; 26:6,7,8). Yet as with his use of the

encomium format, Paul makes some unusual twists in the whole presentation. It was crucial in the

set piece defence speech to provide proof and authorized witness. Paul provides proof for the

resurrection in himself; and insists that the invisible Jesus, a peasant from Galilee, had appeared to

him and "appointed [him] to bear witness" (Acts 26:16; 22:15). That was laughable in a court of

law. Yet the erudite, cultured, educated Paul in all soberness made that claim. Aristotle had defined

two types of proof- "necessary proof" (tekmerion), from which irrefutable, conclusive conclusions

could be drawn; and "probable proof", i.e. circumstantial evidence (eikota / semeia). Paul's claim to

have seen Jesus on the Damascus road was of course circumstantial evidence, so far as the legal

system was concerned- it could not be proven. Yet Paul calls this his tekmerion, the irrefutable

proof (Acts 22:6-12; 26:12-16). Luke elsewhere uses this word and its synonym pistis to describe

the evidence for the Lord's resurrection (Acts 1:3; 17:31). Paul's point of course was that the

personal transformation of himself was indeed tekmerion, irrefutable proof, that Christ had indeed

risen from the dead. And so it should be in the witness which our lives make to an unbelieving

world. Significantly, Paul speaks of the great light which his companions saw at his conversion, and

his subsequent blindness, as eikota, the circumstantial evidence, rather than the irrefutable proof

(Acts 22:6,9,11; 26:13). Now to the forensic mind, this was more likely his best, 'irrefutable' proof,

rather than saying that the irrefutable proof was simply he himself. Yet he puts that all the other way

round. Thus when it came to stating 'witnesses', Paul doesn't appeal to his travelling companions on

the road to Damascus. These would've surely been the obvious primary witnesses. Instead, he

claims that "all Judeans" and even his own accusers "if they are willing to testify", are in fact

witnesses of his character transformation (Acts 22:5; 26:4,5). The point is of tremendous power to

us who lamely follow after Paul... it is our personal witness which is the supreme testimony to the

truth of Christ; not 'science proves the Bible', archaeology, the stones crying out, prophecy fulfilling

etc. It is we ourselves who are ultimately the prime witnesses to God's truth on this earth. All this

was foolishness in the judgmental eyes of first century society, just as it is today. Our preaching of

the Gospel is likewise apparent foolishness to our hearers, like Paul it is not "in plausible words of

wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:1-7), even though, again like Paul, many of us could easily try to make it

humanly plausible. Paul's credibility as a preacher was in his very lack of human credibility- he was

hungry and thirsty, poorly dressed, homeless, having to do manual work (1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Cor. 11:27);

he was the powerless one, beaten, imprisoned and persecuted (1 Cor. 4:8-12; 2 Cor. 6:4,5). It's hard

for us to imagine how unimpressive and repulsive this was in first century society. And yet it was

exactly this which gave him power and credibility as a preacher of Christ's Gospel. And he sets

before us a challenging pattern.

22:7- see on Mt. 26:39.

22:14- see on Col. 1:9.

22:16 The urgent appeal for repentance was quite a feature of their witness (2:38; 5:31; 7:51; 11:18;

17:30; 18:18; 20:21; 26:20; Heb. 6:1). There needs to be a greater stress on repentance in our

preaching, 20 centuries later. This is why baptism was up front in their witness, for it is for the

forgiveness of sins; thus in 22:16 they appealed for repentance and baptism in the same breath.

The language of washing away of sins refers to God‘s forgiveness of us on account of our baptism

into Christ. In some passages we are spoken of as washing away our sins by our faith and

repentance (Acts 22:16; Rev. 7:14; Jer. 4:14; Is. 1:16); in others God is seen as the one who washes

67

away our sins (Ez. 16:9; Ps. 51:2,7; 1 Cor. 6:11). This nicely shows how that if we do our part in

being baptised, God will then wash away our sins.

22:18 The Lord Jesus told Paul about the Jews: ―...get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will

not receive thy testimony concerning me‖ (Acts 22:18). And yet Paul always appealed first of all to

the Jews, despite his emotional turning unto the Gentiles at one stage. Even by Acts 28:17, he

started preaching ―to those that were of the Jews first‖ (RVmg.). The principle of ―to the Jews first‖

was paramount and universal in the thinking of Paul. And despite the Holy Spirit repeatedly

warning him not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22,23; 21:11), he went there. He hoped against hope

that even in the light of the foreknowledge that Israel would reject the Gospel, somehow they might

change.

22:19- see on Acts 26:10,11.

He recounts in Acts 22:19-21 how first of all he felt so ashamed of his past that he gently resisted

this command to preach: "I said, Lord... I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that

believed... and he said unto me, Depart... unto the Gentiles" . The stress on ―every synagogue‖ (Acts

22:19; 26:11) must be connected with the fact that he chose to preach in the synagogues. He was

sent to persecute every synagogue in Damascus, and yet he purposefully preached in every

synagogue there (Acts 9:2,20). His motivation was rooted in his deep recognition of sinfulness.

Likewise Peter preached a hundred metres or so from the very place where he denied the Lord.

22:20- see on Rom. 1:32.

22:22 It might seem that it was impossible that Paul, having been beaten and in chains, guarded by

soldiers, could make a hand gesture, say a few words in Hebrew, and quell a raging crowd (Acts

21:31-34; 22:22). Yet it was because he spoke to them in Hebrew, in their own language and in their

own terms, that somehow the very power and realness of his personality had such an effect. It

reminds us of how the Lord could send crowds away, make them sit down…because of His identity

with them, His supreme bridge building.

22:25,28 Paul seems to enjoy putting the wind up the soldiers by waiting until they had bound him

for torture before asking, surely in a sarcastic way, whether it was lawful for them to beat a Roman

citizen. The fact he asked the question when he knew full well the answer is surely indicative of his

sarcasm. The chief captain commented, under his breath it would seem, that it had cost him a

fortune in backhanders to get Roman citizenship. Paul picked up his words and commented, with

head up, we can imagine: ―But I was free born‖- I was born a citizen, never needed to give a penny

in backhanders to get it either. Surely there is an arrogance here which is unbecoming. And it was

revealed at a time when he was in dire straits himself, and after already being in Christ some time. It

may indicate that he was tempted to adopt a brazen, almost fatalistic aggression towards his captors

and persecutors- what Steinbeck aptly described as ―the terrible, protective dignity of the

powerless‖. One can well imagine how such a mindset would start to develop in Paul after suffering

so much at the hands of men. Compare this incident with the way he demands the magistrates to

come personally and release him from prison, because they have unfairly treated him (Acts 16:37).

22:26 We read (almost in passing) that Paul five times was beaten with 39 stripes (2 Cor. 11:22-27).

Yet from Acts 22:26 it is evident that Paul as a Roman citizen didn't need not have endured this. On

each of those five occasions he could have played the card of his Roman citizenship to get him out

of it; but he didn't. It wouldn't have been wrong to; but five times out of six, he chose the highest

level. It may be that he chose not to mention his Roman citizenship so as to enable him access to the

synagogues for preaching purposes. The one time Paul didn't play that card, perhaps he was using

the principle of Jephthah's vow- that you can vow to your own hurt but chose a lower level and

break it.

23:1 Reflect upon Paul‘s claim that he had lived in all good conscience before God all his life (Acts

23:1). The Lord Jesus Himself informs us that Paul kicked against the pricks of his own conscience

68

(Acts 9:5). And in any case, Paul elsewhere says that his good conscience actually means very little,

because it is God's justification, not self-justification through a clear conscience, which is ultimately

important (1 Cor. 4:4 RSV). It seems Paul was aware of his weak side when he comments how

despite his own clear conscience, God may see him otherwise (1 Cor. 4:4 RSV); and surely this was

in his mind. So how true were Paul's words in Acts 23:1? It seems that he said them in bitter self-

righteousness. Soon afterwards he changes his life story to say that he had always tried to have

a good conscience (24:16).

23:1 To address the Sanhedrin as ―brethren‖ has been described as ―almost recklessly defiant‖

(William Barclay, Ambassador For Christ p. 132). The usual address was: ―Rulers of the people

and elders of Israel‖. But Paul instead treated them as his equals.

23:3 Paul's words of Acts 23:3 were surely said in the heat of the moment: "God shall smite thee,

thou whited wall!" . Yet even in hot blood, not carefully thinking through his words (for this doesn't

seem the most appropriate thing to come out with!), Paul was still unconsciously referring to the

Gospels (Mt. 23:27 in this case).

23:3-6 Having started on the wrong footing by this statement, it was perhaps this arrogant mood

which lead him to curse the High Priest as a "whited wall" (23:3-6). It seems to me that Paul

realized his mistake, and wriggled out of it by saying that he hadn't seen that it was the High Priest

because of his poor eyesight- even though Paul would have recognized his voice well enough.

Another possibility is that "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest" is to be read as Paul

claiming that he didn't recognize this high priest, as Christ was his high priest, therefore his cursing

was justified. But he thinks on his feet, and suggests that he is being persecuted only because of his

belief in a resurrection- with the desired result ensuing, that there was a division between his

accusers.

23:6- see on Acts 22:3; Acts 22:6.

Paul‘s general attitude was akin to that of his Lord, in that he was not hyper careful to close off any

opportunities to criticize him. This fear of and sensitivity to criticism is something which seems to

have stymied parts of the body of Christ. He says things like ―I am a Pharisee‖ (Acts 23:6), not ―I

was a Pharisee and now repudiate their false doctrines‖.

The Two Pauls

Paul saw himself as two people. Consider how this dualism is to be found in many places:

The Natural Paul The Spiritual Paul

Paul could say: ―I am a Pharisee...I

am a man which am a Jew‖ (Acts

23:6; 21:13,39; 22:3; 2 Cor. 11:22)

Circumcision and being Jewish has

‗much advantage‘ (Rom. 3:1,2).

―Circumcised the eighth day, of the

stock of Israel‖ (Phil. 3:5). He

argues that all Jews are ―the seed of

Abraham‖, including himself, by

birth (2 Cor. 11:22).

But he also stresses that ―they are not all Israel who are of

Israel‖ because only ―the children of the promise‖, those

baptized into Christ, are counted as the seed (Gal. 3:16,27-

29; Rom. 9:8). The spiritual Paul is neither Jew nor Gentile.

The ‗gain‘ of being personally Jewish Paul counted as loss

(Phil. 3:3-7). His circumcision meant nothing (Rom. 2:29; 1

Cor. 7:19). ―We are the circumcision, which worship God in

the spirit... and have no confidence in the flesh [i.e. the fact

of literal circumcision, see context]‖ (Phil. 3:7)

―We who are Jews by nature and not

sinners of the Gentiles‖ (Gal. 2:15)

This contrasts sharply with Paul‘s whole message that in

Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and both groups are

69

all equally sinners (Rom. 3:9,23). He speaks of ―theirs is the

covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship…

theirs are the patriarchs‖ (Rom. 9:4,5). He clearly

dissociates himself from Jewry. He had to become like a

Jew in order to save them, although he was Jewish (2 Cor.

9:20). He carefully kept parts of the law (Acts 18:18; 21:26;

1 Cor. 8:13). To the Jew he became [again] as a Jew; and to

the Gentiles he became as a Gentile (1 Cor. 9:20). He acted

―To them that are without law, as without law...‖. He was

―dead to the law‖ (Gal. 2:19) He was a Jew but considered

he had renounced it, but he became as a Jew to them to help

them. He saw no difference between Jew and Gentile (Gal.

3:27-29) but he consciously acted in a Jewish or Gentile

way to help those who still perceived themselves after the

flesh. ―...(being not without law to God, but under the law to

Christ)‖ (1 Cor 9:21).

I am carnal (Rom. 7:14) But in Christ he was not carnal (1 Cor. 3:1 s.w.)

No flesh may glory before God (1

Cor. 1:29)

Paul, in his spiritual man, as counted righteous before God,

could glory (Rom. 15:17).

―Not as though I had already

attained, either were already

perfect‖

―Let us therefore, as many as be perfect…‖ (Phil. 3:12,15).

In 1 Cor. 13:10, he considers he is ‗perfect‘, and has put

away the things of childhood. Thus he saw his spiritual

maturity only on account of his being in Christ; for he

himself was not ―already perfect‖, he admitted.

―I laboured more abundantly than

they all...

... yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me‖ (1

Cor 15:10)

God set the apostles first in the

ecclesia (1 Cor. 12:28)

God set the apostles last in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 4:9)

―I live... ... yet not I, but Christ liveth in me [the new ‗me‘]... I [the

old ‗me‘] am crucified with Christ‖ (Gal 2:20)

―I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I

magnify mine office‖ (Rom. 11:13).

He considered himself rightfully

amongst the very chiefest apostles

(2 Cor. 12:11).

He ―supposed‖, the same word translated ―impute‖ as in

‗imputed righteousness‘, that he was amongst the chiefest

apostles (2 Cor. 11:5). He knew this was how his Lord

counted him. But he felt himself as less than the least of all

saints (Eph. 3:8). ―For I am the least of the apostles, that am

not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the

church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am‖ (1

Cor. 15:9-10).

24:16- see on Acts 23:1; Heb. 9:24.

70

A personal focus upon the man Christ Jesus ought to lessen the degree to which our faith is focused

upon the church, without making us out of church Christians. We need to toughen up, to realize

more keenly the self-discipline and self-sacrifice which following the man Jesus requires of us. Paul

"exercised" himself in his spiritual life (Acts 24:16), the Greek word asko being the source of the

English word ascetic. It should not be that our Christianity gives us merely a headful of vital truths

but a life unable to fend off sin. We must translate our doctrines into the practice of a transformed

life. On-our-knees prayer, fasting, real sacrifice of time, money and human possibilities… this is

what the life of Christ is about. This, too, is what forges real personality.

24:21- see on Acts 22:6.

24:25 The very fact of judgment to come is in itself a demand for righteousness and temperance

(Acts 24:25). Felix realized this and trembled, in anticipation of rejection at the judgment. As the

Lord had explained in Jn. 5, when a man hears the word of the Gospel, he hears the call to go to

judgment. And if he rejects it, he rejects himself from the Lord's presence in the future. Likewise

Acts 17:31 reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as

judge of living and dead is a command to repent.

24:26- see on Lk. 8:3.

25:10-12 Paul's appeal to Caesar seems to have been quite unnecessary, and again it seems to have

been the outcome of bitter exasperation and almost pride: "I ought to be judged", as a Roman

citizen..."no man may deliver me...", "as thou very well knowest"; the response of Festus seems to

be appropriate to Paul's arrogance: "Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar thou shalt go"

(25:10-12). The word used to describe Paul's "appeal" is that usually translated "to call on (the name

of the Lord)", perhaps suggesting that this was whom Paul should have called in, not Caesar.

26:6- see on Acts 22:6.

26:8 If we have really died and resurrected with the Lord, we will be dead unto the things of this

world (Col. 2:20; 3:1). This is why Paul could say that the greatest proof that Christ had risen from

the dead was the change in character which had occurred within him (Acts 26:8 ff.). This was ―the

power of his resurrection"; and it works within us too. The death and resurrection of Jesus of

Nazareth aren‘t just facts we know; if they are truly believed, there is within them the power of

ultimate transformation.

26:11 I am convinced that a major reason for the success of the early church was that they weren‘t

paranoid about issues of fellowship and guilt-by-association; they were simply radical preachers.

They preached an exclusive message, but they wished to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The

Lord Himself taught that the time would come when His followers would be disfellowshipped from

the synagogues. But He doesn‘t teach them to leave the synagogues, even though first century

Judaism was both doctrinally and morally corrupt. Acts 26:11 would seem to imply that there were

Christians ―in every synagogue‖.

26:10,11 Paul‘s progressive appreciation of his own sinfulness is reflected in how he describes what

he did in persecuting Christians in ever more terrible terms, the older he gets. He describes his

victims as ―men and women‖ whom he ‗arrested‘ (Acts 8:3; 22:4), then he admits he threatened and

murdered them (Acts 9:3), then he persecuted ―the way‖ unto death (Acts 22:4); then he speaks of

them as ―those who believe‖ (Acts 22:19) and finally, in a crescendo of shame with himself, he

speaks of how he furiously persecuted, like a wild animal, unto the death, ―many of the saints‖, not

only in Palestine but also ―to foreign [Gentile] cities‖ (Acts 26:10,11). He came to appreciate his

brethren the more, as he came to realize the more his own sinfulness. And this is surely a pattern for

us all.

26:12- see on Acts 22:6.

71

26:13- see on Acts 22:6.

26:16 The apostles in their letters usually open by reminding their readers that they are slaves of the

Lord Jesus- this is how they saw themselves. Paul was called to be a slave of the Gospel (Acts

26:16; Gk. hypereten- a galley slave, rowing the boat chained to the oars). There were slaves who

were made stewards or managers [‗bishops‘] of the Master‘s business, but essentially they

themselves were still slaves.

26:16-19 The Lord Jesus seems to have encouraged Paul to see Moses as his hero. Thus he asked

him to go and live in Arabia before beginning his ministry, just as Moses did (Gal. 1:17). When he

appeared to Paul on the Damascus road, he spoke in terms reminiscent of the Angel's commission to

Moses at the burning bush: ―I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and

a witness both of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear

unto thee; delivering thee from the (Jewish) people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send

thee, to...turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may

receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance... Whereupon... I (Paul) was not disobedient unto the

heavenly vision" (Acts 26:16-19). Moses was promised that he would be protected from Pharaoh so

that he could bring out God's people from the darkness of Egyptian slavery ("the power of Satan");

going from darkness to light is used by Peter as an idiom to describe Israel's deliverance from

Egypt, which the new Israel should emulate (1 Pet. 2:9). Moses led Israel out of Egypt so that they

might be reconciled to God, and be led by him to the promised inheritance of Canaan. As Moses

was eventually obedient to that heavenly vision, so was Paul- although perhaps he too went through

(unrecorded) struggles to be obedient to it, after the pattern of Moses being so reluctant.

26:18 Paul was to bring others to the light just as John had (Lk. 1:77,79 = Acts 13:47; 26:18,23).

God‘s manifestation of His word through preaching is limited by the amount of manifestation His

preachers allow it. Through the first century preaching of the Gospel, men and women were "turned

from darkness to light... that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them

which are sanctified" (Acts 26:18).

Salvation involves us receiving ―an inheritance among them which are sanctified‖ (Acts 26:18). It is

not a purely personal matter. It is part of a shared experience, something we obtain a part in. Christ

is His body. He doesn't exist separate from His body; for all existence in the Bible is bodily

existence. And we are His body. He is us. Likewise we are the branches of the Christ-vine (Jn. 15).

Because we are all in the one body of Christ, therefore we are intimately associated with the other

parts of the body.

The Power of Satan Comments

1. Verse 17 shows that the ―they‖ and ―them‖ referred to are the Gentiles. Are we to think that the

Jews were not under ―the power of Satan‖? At the time Paul was writing there were very many

sinful Jews, consciously persecuting the Christians. So this verse cannot be referring to the entire

human race.

2. There is no specific indication here that ―Satan‖ is a personal being.

Suggested Explanations

1. There are some clear contrasts drawn here:

To open their eyes (They were blind).

To turn them from darkness to light.

From the power of Satan (sin) unto God (cp. 1 Jn. 1:5).

(Unforgiven) receive forgiveness of sins.

72

(Gentiles without inheritance

by faith in ―the hope of

Israel‖)

them (the Jews) that had access to

sanctification by faith.

The Word of God is a light (Ps. 119:105) and is associated with open eyes (Ps. 119:18). We are

sanctified by the Word (Jn. 17:17). We have seen in our exposition of John 8:44 that it is by the

Word that the power of Satan is overcome; i.e. Satan in the sense of the power our evil desires have

over our unregenerate heart. ‗Satan‘ is therefore the antithesis to the light of God‘s word – it refers

to the flesh, which is the opposition of the Spirit word.

2. Ephesians 4:17–20 almost seems to directly allude back to this passage in Acts 26:18: ―This I say

therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity

of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the

ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who being past feeling have given

themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so

learned Christ...‖. Being under the power of Satan is therefore a result of having an empty, vain,

fleshly mind (i.e. the Satan of evil desires in our mind having full power) and being ignorant,

without understanding. Matthew 13:19 says that Satan (cp. Mk 4:15) has power over a person

because of their lack of understanding of the Word. Ephesians 4:17–20 is referring to the same thing

as ―the power of Satan‖ defined in Acts 26:18. ―To open their eyes‖ implies to have the eyes of

understanding opened (cp. Eph. 1:18).

3. Acts 26:18 implies that it was ―the power of Satan‖ that stopped the Gentiles from sharing the

inheritance of the Gospel which was preached to the Jews in the promises (Gal. 3:8; Jn. 4:22). We

have shown elsewhere that ―Satan‖ is often connected with the Law and the Jewish system. Maybe

this is another example. Note too the allusions in this verse to Isaiah 42:6,7: ―I... will... keep you,

and give you for a... light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the

prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house‖. This equates the power of Satan with

a prison house, and the Law is likened to a prison in Galatians 3:23 and 4:3.

There are allusions in Acts 26:18 to the Jews‘ crucifixion of Jesus: ―This is your hour, and the

power of darkness‖ (Lk. 22:53); ―Satan‖ (the Jews) has desired to have you‖ (Lk. 22:31), Jesus

warned the disciples at the last supper. The previous verse (Acts 26:17) shows Jesus strengthening

Paul to be brave in his mission to the Gentiles – ―delivering you from the [Jewish] people, and from

the Gentiles‖. Jesus Himself was ―delivered to the Gentiles‖ (Lk. 18:32–33) for crucifixion by the

Jews, and Mark 15:15 implies Jesus was delivered to ―the people‖, too. The phrase ―the people‘

frequently occurs in the crucifixion records. It is as if Jesus is saying: ‗I was delivered to the

Gentiles and (Jewish) people because of My preaching; I am now commissioning you to preach,

facing the same battle against (the Jewish) Satan and man‘s blindness to the Word of God, due to

his love of the flesh, as I did; but I will deliver you from the Gentiles and Jewish people, rather than

deliver you to them, as I was. You are going to spend your life going through the same experiences

as I faced in My last hours‘. Thus, in yet another way, we can understand how Paul could say ―I am

crucified with Christ‖ (Gal. 2:20).

26:19- see on Acts 13:9.

26:20- see on Mt. 3:8; Acts 13:24,25.

It seems likely that Paul went to hear John the Baptist preach; "there went out to him all the land of

Judea and they of Jerusalem" (Mk. 1:5), and at this time Paul was living in Jerusalem. I believe Paul

heard John and was convicted by him of Christ. John preached the need to "bring forth fruits meet

73

unto repentance" (Mt. 3:8); and Paul made those his own watchwords in his world-wide preaching

(Acts 26:20).

Paul took a prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the light of the whole world (Is.

49:6), and applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the whole

world himself (Acts 13:47- although 26:23 applies it to Jesus personally). Paul even says that this

prophecy of Christ as the light of the world was a commandment to him; all that is true of the Lord

Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are in Him. Note that Paul says that God has

commanded us to witness; it wasn‘t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied

Isaiah‘s words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to us, to all who are in

Christ. And when on trial, Paul explained his preaching to the Jews ―and then to the Gentiles‖ as

being related to the fact that he had to ―shew‖ the Gospel to them because Christ rose from the dead

to ―shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles‖ (Acts 26:20,23). In other words, he saw his

personal preaching as shewing forth the light of Jesus personally.

We have suggested elsewhere that Paul was first called to the Gospel by the preaching of John the

Baptist. He initially refused to heed the call to ―do works meet for repentance‖. But, fully aware of

this, he preached this very same message to others (Mt. 3:8 cp. Acts 26:20).

Men "should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:18-20). As with

Mt. 21:28-31, this refers primarily to baptism. "Repent and turn to God" surely matches "Repent

and be baptized" in Acts 2:38. Turning to God is associated with baptism in Acts 9:35; 11:21;

15:19; 1 Thess. 1:9. Following conversion, our works should match the profession of faith we have

made. But there is no proof here for the equation 'Forgiveness = repentance + forsaking'. The

"works" seem to refer to positive achievement rather than undoing the results of past failures. Works

meet for repentance are fruits of repentance (Mt. 3:8 cp. Lk. 3:8). We have shown that there are

different degrees of fruit/ repentance which God accepts, and that this fruit is brought forth to God,

and that its development takes time. We cannot therefore disfellowship a believer for not bringing

forth fruit in one aspect of his life.

26:22 The apostles bore witness to the Lord Jesus (e.g. Acts 26:22; 1 Cor. 15:15 s.w.), and He in

turn bore witness to the [preaching of] the word of his grace (Acts 15:8). In their witness lay His

witness.

26:23- see on Jn. 9:4.

26:26- see on 2 Cor. 3:12.

26:27 "Believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest" (26:27) suggests that Paul in full

flow, even shackled and in prison clothes, had a fleck of arrogance and aggression in his

presentation.

26:28 Paul was not against using persuasion; he didn‘t just ‗preach the truth‘ and leave it for others

to decide. Agrippa commented: ―With but a little [more] persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a

Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little [persuasion] or with much, not

only thou but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am‖ (Acts 26:28,29 RV). Paul

wasn‘t against using persuasion to bring men unto his Lord, and neither should we be.

27

Paul's Shipwreck

There is no doubt that the great apostle Paul was a clear type of the Lord Jesus. He confidently

holds himself up as an example to us to follow, so that we might follow the Lord Jesus. The links

between Paul's sufferings and those of his Lord have been tabulated elsewhere(1)

. I get the feeling

that there are times when Paul consciously alludes to Christ's words, and appropriates them to

himself. For example, in v.34 of Acts 27 we read of how he promised them that "not an hair (would)

74

fall from the head" of any of them, just as Christ promised his disciples (Lk.21:18); and the way in

which Paul twice encouraged them "be of good cheer" (v.22,25) as they huddled together breaking

bread is also quoting the very words of the Lord Jesus, in the same context (Jn.16:33); and

remember that Jesus also said those words when the disciples were struggling in another great storm

(Mk.6:50). The way Paul broke bread in v.35 is also an echo of the way Christ did it: "When he had

thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all: and when he had

broken it, he began to eat...and they also took some". We get the impression that Paul was slowly,

deliberately copying the example of Jesus in the upper room (1 Cor.11:23,24). So it is as if Paul is

seeing himself as typical of Christ, and those in the ship with him as typical of Christ's followers.

The way the Angel appeared to him at night to strengthen him (v.23) also echoes the experience of

Christ in the Garden.

If we study carefully this record of Paul's shipwreck, it becomes apparent that it is written in a way

which is not just a narrative of certain historical events. All through there are phrases and ideas

which connect with other Scripture. After all, if God's Spirit wrote this record, there are going to be

connections with other Spirit-inspired Scriptures; for the Spirit of God is one (Eph.4:4), it's end

product is unity, of whatever sort. So when we start to put together all the links with other parts of

the Word which we find in Acts 27, it becomes crystal clear that we are really intended to see these

events as parabolic of the drama of our salvation. Now I want to labour this point about the Spirit-

word having connections with other parts of the Word. Seeing types and parabolic meaning in Bible

passages is not just a kind of hobby, an enthusiasm, for some who are keen on that kind of thing.

We really are intended by God to make these connections. This is one reason why He wrote His

word as He did.

Ship, Storm and Sea

So let me give you an example of the sort of thing I mean. If you look at this whole story from a

macro perspective, as it were half shut your eyes and just see the general outline, some bells should

start ringing. There were a group of sailors, with an immensely spiritual man in their midst, caught

in a freak, unexpected storm which threatened their life, filled with panic and desperation. Then the

spiritual man stands up in their midst and inspires them with his words, and on his account they are

saved by God and miraculously reach land. Of course - I hope!- our minds go back to the storm on

Galilee, with the Lord Jesus standing up in the midst of those terrified men. And when we analyze

the record in detail, we find this similarity confirmed. " A tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon"

'beat' (Gk., AVmg.) against the ship (v.14). The same Greek word for " beat" occurs in Mk.4:37, in

the record of the Galilee storm. The disciples' comment must have been echoed by Paul's fellow

passengers: "What manner of man is this...?" . Closer study of Mk.4:37-41 reveals many links with

Jonah's experience; and Acts 27 also has connections with this, admittedly different ones. The

progressive lightening of the ship by throwing everything overboard (v.18,38) is a clear link back to

Jonah 1:5. On Christ's own authority, we can interpret Jonah as a type of Christ, who saved the

ship's crew (cp. the church) by jumping overboard to his three day death (cp. Christ). Thus the boat

passengers in both Jonah and Acts 27 represent ourselves, and their physical rescue points forward

to our spiritual salvation. When Paul tells them to eat food "for your health " (v.34), he uses the

Greek word normally translated " salvation" . And Young's Literal Translation brings out the correct

sense of Acts 28:1: "They, having been saved..." . They escaped safely to " the land" (v.44 Gk.),

symbolic of the Kingdom.

Now you might have noticed that several times we read about them using the anchors. Then in v.41

we read of the forepart sticking fast and remaining "unmoveable" . There are connections here with

Hebrews 6:19, which speaks of the hope of the Gospel as "an anchor of the soul... which entereth

into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus" . The idea of Christ as

a forerunner, the firstfruits, is surely to be connected with "the forepart" of the vessel remaining

unmoveable. As they crawled up the shore on Malta, Paul and the others would have looked back to

75

that unmoveable bow of the ship; perhaps they went to see it the next morning, as it stood proudly

amid the calmed waters. That sight would have stayed with Paul; perhaps the Spirit used that

memory when it inspired Paul to use the same Greek word (the only other occurrence in the NT) in

Heb.12:28: "We receiving a Kingdom which cannot be moved , let us hold fast " (AVmg.), as the

bow of the ship "stuck fast" . This is all further proof that we should see the incidents of Acts 27 as

parabolic of deeper spiritual things.

Forgotten Feasts

As always with this kind of thing, just one or two connections don't clinch the point. But what we

want to do this morning is to go through this chapter, looking at the more evident pieces of

evidence, pausing to draw the exhortations. So let's start in v.2. "Adramyttium" means 'the house of

death'. That speaks for itself. You can easily jot that in the margin of your Bibles. Now down to v.9:

"Sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past" . Pliny records that long

distance sailing was supposed to finish on the Day of Atonement; and seeing that this was the only

Jewish feast which involved fasting, it is likely that they set sail just after the day of Atonement (so

the Greek implies). The Day of Atonement was on the 10th day of the seventh Jewish month. We

can assume that they left Lasea (v.8) on about the 12th day of the seventh month, just after the day

of Atonement on the 10th, when navigation was supposed to cease. But three days later (v.19), Paul

and Luke were throwing overboard the loose tackling of the ship, in the midst of the storm. This

would have been the fifteenth day of the seventh month; exactly when the feast of Tabernacles

began. This feast lasted seven days (Ez.45:25 styles it "the feast of the seven days"). During that

period, Paul and Luke were probably fasting, and doubtless sharing in the fear which gripped that

vessel. It was obviously impossible to keep the feast. The sensitive Jewish-Christian mind of the

first century would immediately have picked up on this; and if he (or she) grasped the idea that

these events were parabolic, they would have seen in this the powerful demonstration that in Christ

it is impossible to go on keeping the Mosaic feasts.

Spiritual Magnetism

Paul was clearly held in some esteem on that ship. Even as a prisoner, he was able to muscle in on

the discussions about whether or not to go on sailing: " Paul admonished them" (v.9) implies that

he knew that he commanded enough respect to put his point quite forcibly. And v.11 is written in a

rather strange way. It doesn't say that the Centurion disbelieved Paul; but rather that he believed the

shipmaster more than Paul's words . He evidently had a great respect for Paul as a person. And as

Paul stood on that cold, windswept deck, shouting above the noise of the wind (v.21), you get the

picture of a man whose magnetism was fully effective on that rough crowd of seamen and prisoners.

Such was his authority that a word from him resulted in them ditching the lifeboat; the only human

chance of salvation. Once they did that, they were completely dependent on the spiritual vision of

this extraordinary man Paul. His repeated exhortation " Be of good cheer...be of good cheer"

(v.22,25) was taken to heart by them: " Then were they all of good cheer" (v.36). And like a father

with sick children, Paul got them, against their will initially, to sit down to a good wholesome meal.

The uncanny appeal of Paul is brought out when we consider the implication of v.35: Paul prayed in

the presence of them all , all 275 of them, presumably mustered on the deck, and then solemnly ate

in front of them, passing the food on to them. Paul's magnetism is most clearly shown by the

Centurion being willing to allow all the prisoners to make their own way to land, rather than allow

Paul to be killed (v.43). Of course our mind goes back to how the jailor at Philippi was literally on

the verge of suicide because he just thought that his prisoners had escaped (actually, none of them

had). Yet among those 276 desperate men, there must have been some who secretly despised Paul.

The Centurion " kept them from their purpose "of killing Paul (v.43). This may suggest that even in

their personal desperation, some of the men on that ship were prepared to kill Paul, due to their own

sense of inadequacy, and jealousy of his spirituality.

76

In all this we have a cameo of the position of the Lord Jesus amongst them who are called to

salvation. We should be sensing, here and now as we face the emblems of his sacrifice, as we sense

his presence in the midst of us this morning, something of his magnetism, something of the feeling

of the disciples on Galilee when they muttered: "What manner of man is this"; something of the

wonder of those soldiers when they returned to their C.O. with the quiet comment: "Never man

spake like this man" . Or the wonder of another Centurion: "Truly this was the Son of God. Truly

this was a righteous man" (Mt.27:54; Lk.23:47; imagine his tone of voice, and which words he

emphasized in that sentence). Now each of us here ought to know this feeling. But I fear that we

come here, to this table of the Lord, week by week, and somehow the sense of marvel, the sense of

wonder, at the personality of the Lord Jesus, just isn't there. Do we really know Him as we should?

Do we really feel and respond to that spiritual magnetism which exudes from him, now just as much

as in the first century? Are we really metal to the spiritual magnet of His perfect personality? These

are things which no magic set of words from me can put right. Do you know Christ as your personal

saviour? Well hacked, well worn words, I know. But they are right at the crux, at the very heart, of

our spiritual lives. This ought to make us really sit up, take a hold on ourselves, realizing that time is

so short to improve our knowing of Christ.

Verse 12 says that their temporary harbour " was not commodious" to stay in, so they left, "if by any

means they might attain to Phenice" . Now I just don't think it's accidental, or irrelevant, that this

very phrase was used by Paul a few years (or months?) later, once he got to Rome and sat down to

write to the Philippians. He wrote of how he struggled to know the real spirit of Christ's self-

crucifixion, having counted all the things of this life as dung, losing them all so that he might know

the real mind of the crucified Christ, "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the

dead " (Phil.3:11). The horrific memory of the shipwreck would have stayed with him all his days.

Under the Spirit's guidance, he would have recalled the spirit in that ship, as they all set sail if by

any means they might attain unto Phenice. That run down old town of 'Fair Havens', its name

promising what it certainly wasn't, full of lonely old men sitting in cheap tavernas... it must have

been some depressing place, to make the sailors take the risk of sailing further on in such

unpredictable weather. We might be able to imagine or remember towns like that which we know.

And that run down ghost-town, Paul said, was typical of how we should see our lives in the world,

worth making any sacrifice to leave, if by any means we might attain to a better resting place.

Fortnight of Fear

It is difficult for us to imagine what that fortnight in the storm was like. Verse 21 speaks of the

"harm" which they experienced, using a Greek word which is usually used about mental harm or

damage. They were deeply perplexed in mind and body. Their helplessness amidst the fury of those

winds is brought home by the Spirit: "We let (the ship) drive...and so (we) were driven...being

exceedingly tossed with a tempest...no small tempest lay on us (i.e. smothered us)...we were driven

up and down in Adria". Our brief life of probation is described in widely different terms by the

Spirit. Here we get the idea that it is a totally horrific experience, full of fear, first of one thing (e.g.

of grounding on quicksands), and then of another (being broken on rocks). In other places our

experience of life now is likened to a plodding on through the wilderness, in others to a short sharp

battle, in others to the monotonous tramping out of corn by an ox, the patient waiting of the farmer,

or the lonely, dogged endurance of the long distance runner. And in yet other passages we are

promised a life of "all (possible) joy and peace through believing" , dashing on from victory to

victory, more than conquerors, caught up with the ecstasy of the triumphant march in Christ, all our

lives long. We must see our experience of spiritual life in holistic terms, we mustn't just emphasize

one of these aspects. The way these different aspects all merge together in our spiritual experience

is, to me, one of the most wonderful things about a balanced life in the Truth. An unbalanced

approach will lead to us doggedly clinging on to the doctrines of the Truth, rejecting any suggestion

that there should be an element of spiritual rapture and ecstasy in our lives. Or it may lead to an over

77

emotional, watery sort of spirituality which reacts against any hint that we ought to be gritting our

teeth and holding on to our faith, fearing the ferocious satan of our own evil natures.

In our own strength, we really are like those sailors. "All hope that we should be saved was then

taken away" (v.20). When they waved goodbye to the lifeboat, that really was the end of even the

wildest dreams of salvation. They fixed their faith on the serene old man who spoke in calm

confidence of his deep relationship with the true God. It has been said, quite rightly, that a healthy

fear of the judgment seat is vital if we are to be saved. "Let us therefore fear ", Paul wrote

(Heb.4:1), and later in Hebrews he holds up Noah as our example, in that he was " moved with

(motivated by) fear" in working out his own salvation (Heb.11:7). The parable of the shipwreck

certainly brings home to us this aspect of fear in our spiritual journey. So, there should be some

element of fear in our spirituality. It is sometimes said that fear just means respect. This is

sometimes true, but not always. The fear of the men in that boat was real fear, not just respect. Of

course we must be balanced; a life of excessive fear of being spiritually drowned does not consider

those other aspects of our walk in Christ which we mentioned earlier. But this morning, as we face

the supreme holiness of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and the supreme justice and righteousness

of the Most High God, Yahweh of Israel, a righteousness which is absolute and cannot be

compromised at all; and as we consider the filth of our own natures, the endless list of failure, half

hearted spiritual effort, even at times willful ignorance of God's ways; there must surely be a

significant element of fear within us, of panic and desperation as we sense the cage, the trap, of our

own sinfulness. Do we really love righteousness? Do we so hate sin? So love God, so hate our sins,

that we can enter into the feelings of those men in the storm, as they were driven up and down by

the Mediterranean winds? We noted earlier the way in which the record stresses the power of those

winds; and winds are a fairly common symbol of the pressure upon the believer from the

surrounding world, and from the innate, sinful promptings of our own natures (Eph.4:14; James 1:6;

3:4; Jude 12). The howling of those winds must have militated against their having a total trust in

Paul's words. When he spoke of how the Angel had appeared to him, no doubt they kind of believed

him. But the record shows that in practice they tried to work out their salvation their own way.

Despite having been told that they would all be saved if they stayed with Paul, some of them tried to

escape using the lifeboat. The soldiers' suggestion that they kill Paul and the prisoners shows a like

lack of appreciation. Yet they all took Paul's exhortation to " be of good cheer" . Psychologically, he

did cheer them up. They felt better after breaking bread with him and hearing his words. But they

still tried to get out of that mess their own way. You can see the similarity with us this morning, as

we sit here in the presence of the Lord Jesus, hearing him speak for these few moments, above the

winds of temptation and this world. The words of the hymn come powerfully to mind: " O let me

hear thee speaking / In accents clear and still / Above the storms of passion / The murmurs of self-

will".

Loving His appearing

The description of Malta as a ―land which they knew not‖ (Acts 27:39) is evidently similar to the

account of Abraham going to a land which he knew not (Heb. 11:8,9). The land was a strange‖ land,

just as Malta was perceived as a ―barbarous‖, i.e. pagan, land (Acts 28:2). The desperate situation

of Paul and those with him therefore points forward to an awful time of tribulation for the believers

just prior to being ‗saved‘ into the Kingdom. This climaxes in coming to the place where two seas

meet (Acts 27:41)- surely a reference to the judgment seat. There, it becomes apparent what is to

‗remain unmoveable‘ and what is to be ‗broken‘ or dissolved. These very same Greek words occur

in 2 Pet. 3:10-12, about the breaking up or dissolving of all things at the Lord‘s return; and of the

unmoveable quality of the Kingdom which we shall receive, when all other things have been shaken

to their destruction and dissolution (Heb. 12:27,28).

One of the signs that they were nearing the end of their ordeal was that "neither sun nor stars in

many days appeared" (v.20). Now this sounds very much like Lk.21:25-27: "There shall be signs in

78

the sun and in the...stars...the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear... then

look up... then shall they see the Son of man coming". As soon as it was day, we read in v.39, they

grounded the ship and swam to land, reaching their salvation at daybreak. This fits in to place

alongside the many links between the second coming and daybreak. The men somehow sensed

("deemed" , v.27) that they were approaching land. It is quite likely that the spiritually aware will

have a sense of the nearness of Christ's return. Christ too referred to this when he spoke of how in

the Spring we have an innate sense that Summer is coming; so, He reasoned, you will be able to

sense my return. Now if we really know Christ, have a real two-way, ongoing relationship with him,

as a pupil-disciple to his teacher-master, then we will surely have this sense. "They drew near to

some country" really implies that they were being drawn near; the Greek word is always used

elsewhere about the believer drawing close to the Lord. 1 Pet.3:18 is the best example: "Christ also

hath once suffered for sins...that he might bring us (same word) to God" . Now in our typology that

would suggest that in some way Christ guides us into the Kingdom, helps us through the last lap.

Watch out for other types and hints that this is the case. And talk about it to some dear old brother in

his late eighties whose known the Lord all his days.

On that last night, the sailors prayed for the day to dawn (v.29 Gk., RVmg.). "The day" is an idiom

for the Kingdom in Rom.13:12. This fits in alongside the many other connections between intense

prayer and the second coming (2)

. If we know Christ, as we've been saying, then we will long to

share his glory, we will long to see his beauty with our own eyes. So are we praying earnestly for

the day to dawn? Or are we just content with the knowledge that it will come, like a slow train

coming? Those men prayed for the dawn so intently because they knew that if the winds blew for

much longer, they just couldn't hold on, they would be swept away. They feared ―lest we should be

cast on rocky ground‖ (Acts 27:29 RV)- replete with reference to the parable of the sower. There

are many indications that the body of Christ will be weak and sickly when he returns. The sailors

[=us] even at the very end disbelieved the prophecy that the ship would be destroyed- for they

sought to ―bring the ship safe to shore‖ (Acts 27:22,39 RVmg.). Even for the wise virgins, the

coming of Christ awakes them from their spiritual slumber. Unless the days are shortened, even the

elect will be carried away with the ways of the world (Mt.24:22). If we can really see the spiritual

dangers of the last days, if we can sense our real spiritual state, we will realize that we urgently need

the coming of Christ, for the simple reason that we are all so weak spiritually that we will

effectively lose our faith unless he's back soon. And in response to the elect's prayers, the days will

be shortened. The Lord will help us through the final lap.

It was on the very last, fourteenth night, that some in the ship lost their faith in Paul. They tried to

get away from the ship in the lifeboat, "under colour as though they would have cast (more) anchors

out" (v.30). The Greek for "under colour as though" is always used elsewhere in the context of

spiritual pretence, especially in prayer (Mk.12:40; Mt.23:14; Lk.20:47). Under the appearance of

trying to make the salvation of the others more certain (by casting more anchors), these men were

trying to leave the ship because they honestly thought that the rest of them stood no chance. Is there

here some prophecy of how just prior to the Lord's return, some will try to leave the body of Christ,

under the appearance of spiritually strengthening the rest of us? But the watchful Paul spotted what

was going on, and somehow got them to abandon it. What this typifies is beyond even my

imagination. "Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved" (v.31) sounds like Christ's words

of Jn.15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..." . But there is a twist here in v.31; as if our

all remaining together in the Christ-ship is somehow related to our collective salvation.

And so finally, there they were, crawling up the shore on Malta, the waves breaking over their

heads, the backwash pulling them back, but struggling on up the beach in the early hours of that

morning, cold and soaked, perhaps with hypothermia setting in, but brimming over with the joy of

their miraculous salvation. Now that is the picture, in this type, of our salvation. As we enter the

Kingdom, we will be at our most bedraggled, the weakness of our natures will then be made fully

apparent to us. "They knew not the land" , only once they were saved did they know the name of it

79

(27:39; 28:1). The total foreigners who gave them such a warm welcome perhaps point forward to

the Angels welcoming us into the Kingdom. As Abraham went forth into a land which he knew not,

so in many ways we do not know much about the Kingdom, our salvation. Remember that the 1000

years of the Millenium is just going to be a speck of a few millimetres in the infinity of our

salvation; let's not think that the Kingdom is just the Millenium. We simply lack the ability to really

understand what God's nature is really going to be like. We can only describe things with words and

colours, perhaps words aren't enough to describe it, language is too limited, there must be other

paradigms beyond words to express God's nature, the nature of our salvation; yet we now just

cannot enter into them. We know that the arena of our salvation will be this earth. But if I point to

say that square meter over there, all I know is that it will one day be in the Kingdom, I have some

idea what might go on there during the Millenium, but through eternity, no. It's like if I gave you

some Chinese writing to read, you wouldn't know how to pronounce the letters, whether to start

reading from the top or bottom of the page, to start from the left or the right. So we would be with

information about the Kingdom. But like those sailors, we are driven on by our desperate fear of our

own sinfulness, of the eternal death which we are so close to, yet captivated by the words and

assurance of the Lord Jesus in our midst, knowing that where he is, both physically and spiritually,

indeed in whatever sense, there we earnestly wish to be for eternity.

So in the midst of this spiritually difficult life, a world which daily buffets us with its winds, which

continually says to us "Where is thy God?", we are to break bread with the Lord Jesus. As God

gave Paul all the men who sailed with him, so we have been given to the Lord Jesus (v.24). Of those

whom God gave Jesus, He lost none (Jn.17:12). In many ways our lives are a case of hanging on, of

hanging in there with Christ, abiding in him and he in us, through our constant meditation upon him

and his word. We are all lacking in this; so let's be fired up this week to do something about it. But

in the midst of their horrific experience, those mixed up men became "of good cheer" on account of

doing this. And so it is with us. Week by week, we are throwing overboard the human things upon

which we lean, upon which we hope, those things which promise us a Kingdom in this life; and

more and more we fix our gaze upon the Lord Jesus, upon his assurance in the midst of this storm:

"Be of good cheer". So let us now be silent for some minutes, to fix our minds upon him, to

know Him, to look ahead to hearing those simple words from his lips as we tremble before him at

the judgment, our love and joy blending with our fear: " Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's

good pleasure to give you the Kingdom".

Notes (1) See Harry Whittaker, Studies In The Acts Of The Apostles (Cannock: Biblia, 1996) .

(2) See my The Last Days pp.35,43,114,142,202,212,241.

27:18 The record of Paul's shipwreck is described in language which clearly reflects the LXX

description of Jonah's sea voyage (e.g. Acts 27:18 = Jonah 1:5); to suggest that like Jonah, Paul was

also fellowshipping the cross. Paul made a supreme effort to fellowship the Lord Jesus, to absorb

the spirit of Christ deeply into his own mind. God confirmed him in his efforts, by working in his

life to give him circumstances which recalled the experiences of Christ, and which thereby

encouraged him to do this even more successfully.

27:21 On the voyage to Rome, it was only after much "abstinence" that Paul openly preached to the

crew and other prisoners (Acts 27:21)- as if he struggled against a shyness in public testifying. See

on Acts 18:4,5.

27:25 Mary was an inspiration to Paul in his trial (Lk. 1:45 = Acts 27:25).

27:31- see on Acts 15:1.

28:3 Acts 28:3–6 describes how a lethal snake attacked Paul, fastening onto his arm. The

surrounding people decided Paul was a murderer, whom ―vengeance suffers not to live‖. Their

80

reading of the situation was totally wrong. But Paul did not explain this to them in detail; instead, he

did a miracle – he shook the snake off without it biting him. The Lord Jesus did just the same.

28:15 When some members of the Rome ecclesia (who were rather weak, 2 Tim. 4:16) came to

meet him at Appii, Paul took courage at the very sight of them; one gets the picture (from the

Greek) of him seeing them, recognizing who they were, and feeling a thrill of courage go through

his soul (Acts 28:15; note how Luke says "he" rather than "we" , as if emphasizing that Paul was

more encouraged than he was by these unknown brethren showing up). Here was no self-motivated

old brother, indifferent to what his younger and weaker brethren could do for him by way of

encouragement.

28:17 One can only be impressed by the way that within only three days of arriving in Rome after

an awesome journey, Paul began preaching by inviting the local Jews to come to him. He would

have had so much else to attend to surely, quite apart from getting over the trauma of the journey

28:20 Paul realized the methodology we use with people can affect their conversion. And he knew

that personal contact was by far the best. ―For this cause therefore did I intreat you to see AND to

speak with me‖ (Acts 28:20 RV). He called men to have a personal meeting with him, rather than

just to hear the theory. Not just to hear him, but to see him… for we are the essential witnesses. Paul

could have written to the Jews in Rome from prison, but he realized that true witness involves

personal contact wherever possible.

28:31 We read in Acts 28:31 that whilst in Rome, Paul taught the things of the Kingdom and the

Lord Jesus. But his letter to the Romans places the emphasis upon the reign of grace. He speaks of

how grace "reigns", as if grace is the dominating, ruling principle in the lives of those who have

now sided with the Kingdom of God rather than that of this world. Testifying the Gospel of God's

grace is paralleled by Paul with testifying about the Kingdom- and he says this again in a Roman

context (Acts 20:24,25).

28:31- see on Eph. 6:19.

81

ROMANS

The Structure Of Romans: The Power Of Basics

I am somewhat cynical of attempts to break down the books of the Bible into sections and sub-

sections. These break downs may assist our interpretation, but I somehow doubt whether the writers

or the Spirit of God behind them consciously intended to write in that way. However, in Romans

there is a very distinct structure which cannot be denied. The structure of Romans is clear. The letter

begins with a brief introduction regarding the Gospel, and concludes with a major dissertation about

the preaching of the Gospel. This introduction and epilogue are evidently linked; thus " ..stablish

you according to my Gospel" (16:25) looks back to " …that ye may be established" (1:11); "your

obedience is come abroad unto all men" (16:19) is "your faith is spoke of throughout the whole

world" (1:8); and the idea that the Gospel is preached " for obedience to the faith" is the start and

end point of the letter (1:5; 16:26). The main body of the letter in between this introduction and

epilogue is comprised of a purely doctrinal section (chapters 1-11) and then a practical section (12-

15). The purpose of this study is to show how the basic doctrines of the Gospel are to be the basis

for our way of life. The practical teaching of Paul is consistently built upon the doctrinal exposition

he has given in the first part of the letter; "I beseech you therefore" (12:1) is the turning point. The

doctrinal section itself has a climax half way through, in the first part of chapter 6 concerning

baptism. This is the fulcrum of the whole theological argument contained in Romans 1-8; and this is

the section most frequently alluded to in the practical section: as if to say that the fact of our

baptisms and what it means for us in an ongoing sense must be the basis for our daily living.

Romans 12-16

[practical

commandments]

Romans 1-11 [exposition of the Gospel]

12:1 We must live the

practical life of

obedience "by the

mercies of God"

This Greek word occurs only in 9:15: "I will have compassion on whom

I will" . The mercy / compassion of God is shown to us by grace, by

some kind of predestination, and not because we deserve it. In view of

these "mercies" , therefore we ought to live the life Paul now outlines.

Our understanding of the grace of predestination isn't something

academic or philosophical- the mercy and grace shown in it beseech us

to live a better life. And according to Eph. 15,6,11,12 RV,

predestination is not something that should merely confuse us, but rather

it is there "to the end that…" we might praise God in lives of gratitude.

12:1 Present your

bodies (12:1) occurs

later in 14:10 [we will

stand before the

judgment seat] and in

16:2 [assist] Phoebe-

yield yourselves to her

in helpful support.

Baptism is a promise to yield [s.w.] our bodies to God's service

(6:12,13,19). This means the Romans were to assist / yield to Phoebe

and present themselves in practical service (12:1); we will present

ourselves / yield ourselves before the Lord when we come before His

final judgment (14:10), and so we ought to now, as we vowed at

baptism.

12:1 Offer your body as

a living sacrifice

Through baptism we show that we have died, the body of sin has been

destroyed (6:6), we were crucified with Christ. So therefore, 12:1 is

82

saying, don't be frightened to sacrifice / give up the things of this life.

The appeal to present ourselves as ―living men‖ after baptism (6:13) is

surely to be connected with the appeal to present ourselves as living

sacrifices in 12:1.

12:2 be not conformed

to this world / age

Only three verses earlier in 11:36 the same word is used about how

Christ will be glorified "for ever" (AV), the world / age [to come]. Live

for that age, live the Kingdom life of glorifying Christ now, if you do

that you can't be conformed to this age, but to the future one.

12:4,5 We are each

members of His body,

each of us must play our

part in the body /

ecclesia of Christ; we

each have an office /

deed in it.

6:13,19; 7:5,23 the members of our own personal bodies, every part of

our physical and spiritual / emotional life, must be given to the service

of Christ; we died with Him. By doing this, we will have our part in the

body of Christ; we will be members of His body, if each of our own

members has been submitted to Him.We must mortify the deeds of the

body (8:3)- and then we will have part in the office / deeds of the body

of Christ. This is why personal spirituality is a condition for ecclesial

office.

12:6 We each have gifts

of serving

But the gift emphasized earlier in Romans is that of forgiveness,

justification, salvation (5:15,16; 6:23). The response to this gift is to

serve practically; therefore the gift of God's salvation and grace is

thereby also a gift / ability to serve His people (as in 1 Pet. 4:10).

12:8 He that sheweth

mercy; the Greek can

mean both to shew

mercy (as here; 9:16;

Jude 22) and to obtain

mercy (11:30,31; 1 Cor.

7:25; 2 Cor. 4:1; 1 Tim.

1:13,16). To obtain

mercy, to really believe

it, means we will shew

it.

The same phrase 'to shew mercy' is used in 9:15,16,18; 11:3-32 re. our

obtaining mercy on the basis of God's pure and predestined grace rather

than our works. Rooted in this experience, we must likewise show

mercy to others on the basis of grace rather than their behaviour towards

us.

12:10 give honour to

each other

9:21 God gives honour on the basis of grace rather than works; He

decides to honour one rather than another. In this sense we must honour

all of our brethren, for who they are before God rather than for their

works.

12:11; 14:18; 16:18

serve Christ

6:6; 7:6,25 On account of your baptism don't serve sin but serve Christ

12:12 rejoice in hope as

you go about your

Rejoice in hope because of the atonement, because of the death of Christ

for you (5:2), after the pattern of Abraham's joyful hope, thanks to

83

service of others in the

ecclesia

having been given the same promises which we have been (4:18 cp. Jn.

8:56). Such service in joy is difficult when the work we do for our

brethren is repetitious- stamping envelopes or cooking food, e.g. Joy in

service will only come froma conscious holding in our minds of the

personal wonder of the promises, and the fact that the Lord died for us

and really has given us such great salvation…and that we are doing

what we are doing purely as response to that.

12:12 Patient in

tribulation

Tribulation works patience because of our experience of the atonement

(5:3). The love of Christ in the cross was so great that no amount of

tribulation [poverty or sick and crying children, e.g.] should separate us

from it; and therefore we can be patient whilst experiencing it (8:35).

12:16 Mind not high

things but be like-

minded towards each

other. Be not wise in

your own conceits,

because of your own

possibility of failure.

11:20 Be not high-minded but fear- if God rejected the Jews, you are

only a Gentile, and of the same sin and failure-prone nature.

Consideration of God's dealings with Israel and their failures should

lead us to an appropriate attitude of mind.

12:17 recompense to no

man evil for evil; if we

want to be judged by

grace then we must

show it. If we give evil

for evil then this is how

our sins will be judged

at the last day.

2:6 God will render [s.w.] to each man according to his ways. If we

want judgment by grace, then we must shew it now. If we do and show

evil, we will receive it (2:9). And we all do evil at times (7:19). If we are

to receive grace rather than evil for that evil, we must show it to others

in our judgment of them.

12:19 Give place to

God's wrath- don't

avenge yourselves.

The wrath of God is really against sin right now, and it will be at the

judgment (1:18; 2:5,8; 3:5; 4:15; 9:22). The more we believe this, the

less likely we will be to avenge sin against ourselves. Likewise the more

we understand how God justifies us, and the wonder of it, the less likely

we will be to justify ourselves and to be sensitive to what others may or

may not imply about us.

12:20 Feed your enemy,

love him- if he doesn't

respond, your love of

him will heap coals of

fire [condemnation]

upon him

5:10 We were enemies but reconciled by God's love; and yet we face

condemnation if we refuse that reconciliation. From that experience we

must be moved to love our enemies, to ever seek reconciliation; indeed

we will be compelled to do this almost unconsciously, if we truly

believe we were enemies and alienated, and yet by grace have been

reconciled.

13:2 Don't resist God

through resisting /

objecting to the powers

9:19 Who hath resisted His will? Pharaoh tried to but was brought to

destruction because of this. We must learn the lesson, and show it in

submission to the powers of Government in that they are manifesting the

84

of Government will of God towards us- even if it means persecution.

13:2 Otherwise you will

receive damnation

2:2,3; 3:8; 5:16- which must come against sin, because of Adam's sin

(5:16). Understanding the need for damnation of sin means we will not

commit it so quickly.

13:7 render to all their

duesGive " custom"

2:6 God renders to all according to their works, and we are to manifest

God's judgment in little things like paying our taxes fairly; we must

think of the future judgment, the way all will receive their dues

(although ours will be ameliorated by grace), and be influenced by

God's judgment in the way we give others their dues. As God gives an "

end" [s.w. 'custom'] to sin and righteousness (6:21,22).

13:8 Loving our

neighbour fulfils the law

8:3,4 Christ died that we might fulfill the Law; He fulfilled it in His

death, and in that we have a part in that death through baptism, we also

must fulfill it in spirit. To fulfill the law is to love each other; Christ

died that the law might be fulfilled, i.e. that we might love each other.

This is why the remembrance of the Lord's death is in the agape, the

love-feast, where we discern His body, our brethren, and resolve to love

them to the end. John saw the same link when he wrote of how because

Christ lay down His life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for

each other (1 Jn. 3:16; 4:9-11).

13:11 Awake out of

sleep

This phrase is used in Romans only of the resurrection of the Lord

(4:24,25; 6:4,9; 7:4; 8:11,34; 10:9). Because He rose and we are in Him

and share in His resurrection and newness of life by baptism, therefore

we shouldn't be apathetic in our service. This is the power of His

resurrection and our association with it in baptism (6:4,9).

13:12 Put on the armour

of light- as we put on

Christ by baptism. Live

the spirit of baptism in

an ongoing sense.

At baptism we yield our members as instruments [s.w. 'armour'] of

righteousness (6:13). Keep on doing this, keeping on and on arming

yourself, clothing yourself, yielding yourself, just as you did at baptism.

"Walk…" (13:13) as you began walking at baptism "in newness of life"

(6:4).

13:13 Live with no

strife or envy

1:29 there was strife and envy amongst the condemned Israel who

walked through the wilderness. By having these things we show

ourselves to be condemned.

13:14 Don't fulfill the

lusts of the flesh but put

on Christ

6:12 Put on Christ by baptism, and therefore don't obey the flesh "in the

lusts thereof". The language is so similar that surely Paul is teaching that

baptism is an ongoing experience, in essence. Consider how the fire and

water baptized Israel in the Red Sea, and yet continued over them

throughout the Wilderness journey.

14:1 Receive the weak Abraham was not weak in faith (4:19) and we should seek to be like

85

in faith him; but receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it

to his level of personal faith

14:5 Let yourselves be

fully persuaded

As Abraham was "fully persuaded" (4:21)

14:23 He who doubts is

damned

Abraham didn't stagger [s.w.] (4:20); ultimately, he must be our

example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his

standard, and unlike him are " weak in faith" .

14:7,8 No man lives or

dies to himself

6:11,13,16 we share in the life and death of Christ, and therefore we

ourselves are given to Him [s.w. himself in 14:7,8]. We are dead with

Him. Because we are baptized into Christ, our own death and life are

now not for ourselves. Therefore what we eat and drink is part of a life

lived for the Lord, and therefore these things are irrelevant. The

physicalities of life are necessary; but these shouldn't be of any major

importance because our life is given over to Christ. This is a

fundamental challenge, repeated in 2 Cor. 5:15: because of Christ's

death and resurrection for us, we don't live to ourselves but to Him. The

argument in Romans 14 is that therefore, .all the physical things of our

lives are merely incidental. This is an unusual yet powerful way of

telling the Romans not to get distracted by the issue of what some ate or

drunk: we are dead with Christ, our lives are only for Him, therefore

what we physically eat to keep ourselves going, along with all the more

material issues of life, are incidental to the main purpose of life. We live

in a world which increasingly glorifies the frittering away of time and

economy on the incidentals of life; yet the Gospel should make us see

these things for what they are. Rom. 14:17 seems to have the same idea:

"[the gospel of] the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but

righteousness [a word used 33 times in the doctrinal section, regarding

the righteousness of God imputed through the Gospel] , peace [cp. 2:10;

3:17; 5:1; 8:6] and joy [5:2] in the Holy Spirit. He who in these things

serveth Christ…". Note how the Gospel is paralleled with the service of

Christ; to believe it is to live a life of service.

14:13 Let us not judge

one another any more

6:6 henceforth we should not serve sin. One example of this is that after

baptism, living the life of Christ, we no longer judge each other. To do

so is to serve sin.

14:18 we "serve Christ"

by the life of

righteousness, joy and

peace. By being factious

we no longer serve

Christ (16:18)- we are

no longer living out the

baptism vow of serving

6:6; 7:6 we serve Christ after baptism- not so much in works but in

attitudes.

86

Christ.

15:4 By the comfort of "

the scriptures" we have

hope

Paul quotes "the scriptures" to support his exposition of the Gospel: 4:3;

9:17; 10:11; 11:2. His argument in practice gives comfort and hope.

15:9 The believing

Gentiles will "sing unto

thy name"

10:13; 9:17 The believer calls upon himself the name of the Lord in

baptism; through God's work with the gentiles, His Name is declared

through all the earth. The believer, baptized into the Name, will praise

that Name and declare it in song and witness throughout the earth.

15:13 abound in hope 5:15 the grace of God abounds to us [s.w.]; but grace is something

purely abstract unless it is really felt. In this case our abounding in hope

will reflect the abounding of grace which we perceive. Romans 5 almost

plays logical games in order to show just how abounding that grace is.

15:21 Paul preached

because he wanted to

take the Gospel to those

"who have not heard"

10:14-18 argues that men will only hear the Gospel if there is a

preacher; but it is prophesied that they have all heard, because Psalm 19

prophesies that the message has gone into all the earth. Yet the

connection with 15:21 suggests that Paul saw that prophecy, which he

so confidently quotes in the past tense, as if it has already happened, as

dependent upon his own effort in witness. In this we see the limitation

of God within human effort to witness.

15:28 Paul speaks of

sealing unto the Gentile

believers the " fruit" of

their generosity.

6:22 After baptism we are to bring forth fruit to God. But we can help

others do this, as Paul helped the Gentiles to be generous.

16:2 "assist" Phebe 6:13,16,19 We must yield ourselves [s.w.] to the service of God. But this

is shown by yielding our services to His servants. It is a strange way of

describing assistance to Phebe if this is not an intentional allusion [bear

in mind how many other references there are to Rom. 6 in the practical

section of the letter].

16:17 "the doctrine

which ye have learned"

6:17 the form of doctrine delivered to them before baptism. Anyone

who teaches anything which affects the basic Gospel is to be avoided.

This is because the doctrines of the Gospel affect the way of life we

lead, not because the intellectual tradition of the church has been

insulted (1)

.

16:26 Making the

Gospel known

9:22,23 as the power and riches of God were made known [s.w.] to the

world of Egypt. He is likewise manifesting Himself through us in the

work of witness.

87

The structure of Romans concludes with a section about the preaching of the Gospel, as if to say

that the Gospel is in itself an imperative to go forth and live a life dedicated to the ministering of it

to others. It will be apparent from the above analysis how central is Romans 6 to Paul's later appeal

for a way of life in harmony with the Gospel he has expounded. The point is, the reality of the

atonement that has been achieved in Christ, the fact we are baptized into it… if we believe these

things rather than simply know them, these are imperatives which will force / compel us into the

way of life we ought to lead. This is the power of the Gospel and a living faith. This is why it

matters, and matters eternally, what we believe.

Note

(1) On the other hand, this is why any teaching which does not have a practical effect on our lives

cannot be considered a matter of fellowship, in that it is not part of the saving Gospel. The size of

the temple Ezekiel describes, whether Melchizedek was Shem or not… these issues are not part of

the basic Gospel, quite simply because they don't affect how we live our lives. They are matters of

Biblical exegesis which are helpful in perceiving a wider picture in our survey of Bible teaching, but

they are not part of the Gospel which Paul expounds in Romans. And seeing that our "fellowship

[is] in the Gospel", they are not part of any basis of fellowship. The simple test as to whether

something is fundamental is simply this: What effect does it have on our lives in Christ?

1:1 - see on Acts 18:18.

Time and again Paul brings before us the fact he really is our example; thus he begins his Roman

epistle with a description of himself as Paul... called to be an apostle, separated...", but soon goes on

to point out that the Romans were "also the called of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:1,6).

apostle- the word literally means one who is sent, and is translated ―he that is sent‖ in Jn. 13:16. It

could be argued that all who have received the great preaching commission [which is all of us] have

received in essence the same calling and apostleship which Paul did- and he therefore can hold

himself up to us all as an example, seeing we have in principle received the same calling which he

did. He uses the term ―apostle‖ in Rom. 16:7 concerning brethren who were imprisoned with him

who were clearly not amongst the apostles originally chosen by the Lord Jesus. He says in :5 that we

have received apostleship because our Lord rose from the dead; because He rose, all in Him are sent

to take that good news to others. And he uses the same word for ‗calling‘ in :6, suggesting his

calling and apostleship are to be ours.

Separated unto the Gospel- a reference to Acts 13:2 where Paul was separated to go on a missionary

journey; although he felt he had been separated unto this from the womb (Gal. 1:15). God has

likewise separated each of us unto certain callings, but only later in our lives is this made apparent

to us.

1:2 Abraham was a prophet (Gen. 20:7) as was Sarah (Ps. 105:15). In line with Gal. 3:8, Paul may

have the patriarchs in mind here.

1:3 The same Greek words translated 'Word' and 'made' in Jn. 1:14 occur together in 1 Cor. 15:54-

where we read of the word [AV "saying"] of the Old Testament prophets being 'made' true by being

fulfilled [AV "be brought to pass"]. The word of the promises was made flesh, it was fulfilled, in

Jesus. The 'word was made flesh', in one sense, in that the Lord Jesus was "made... of the seed of

David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3)- i.e. God's word of promise to David was fulfilled in the

fleshly person of Jesus. The Greek words for "made" and "flesh" only occur together in these two

places- as if Rom. 1:3 is interpreting Jn. 1:14 for us.

made- Gk. ginomai, to be made, come into being- a nail in the coffin for the idea of a personal pre-

existence of Christ.

1:4 More strictly, ―the resurrection of the dead‖. ―From‖ would require ek , which isn‘t present. The

88

Lord‘s resurrection is in this sense ours, and ours is His. There is in this sense only one resurrection-

that of the Lord.

1:5 Collective societies are all about submission and obedience to those above you in the hierarchy-

yet repeatedly, Christians are exhorted to be obedient and submissive to the Lord Jesus and the new

community in Him (Rom. 1:5; 6:16,17; 2:8 etc.). And even within the new community, Paul's own

example showed that acceptance in the eyes of those who appear to be the pillars of the society of

Christ is also of little ultimate value if they have fallen away from the understanding of grace (Gal.

2:9). To keep using the word "radical" doesn't do justice to the colossal change in worldview that

was required on conversion to Christ. Reflecting on all this, it seems to me that the reason the

Jewish people crucified their Messiah was above all because He so powerfully turned their whole

worldviews upside down- and they just couldn't handle it, just as so many families today turn

against the one who truly turns to Christ.

Paul makes a number of allusions to the great commission, in which he applies it to both himself

and also to us all. The weak argument that it was ‗only for the disciples who heard it‘ evaporates

when it is accepted that Paul wasn‘t one of the 12, and yet the commission applies to him. Consider

Rom. 1:5 RV: ―...through whom we have received grace and apostleship, for the obedience to the

faith among all the nations, for his name‘s sake‖. These words are packed with allusion to the great

commission. And Paul is not in the habit of using the ‗royal we‘ to refer solely to himself. He

clearly sees all his readers as sharing in just the same calling. The early preachers travelled around

―for his name‘s sake‖ (3 Jn. 7), even though they were not in the original band of disciples. Having

alluded to the great commission, Paul goes on in that context to rejoice ―that your faith is

proclaimed throughout the whole world‖ (Rom. 1:7 RV). He saw their example of faith in practice

as being the witness that fulfilled the great commission; and goes on to speak of his sense of debt to

spread the word to literally all men, hence his interest in preaching at Rome (Rom. 1:14,15). And

here we have our example; ―as much as in me is‖, we should each say, we are ready to spread the

Gospel as far as lies in our power to do so.

we is usually used by Paul in Romans regarding him plus his readership, i.e. all of us. We are all

sent ones, apostles- see on 1:1.

Obedience to the faith among all nations... for His name- a reference to the great commission,

which was enabled and necessitated by the Lord‘s resurrection. John speaks of preachers going forth

to preach for His Name‘s sake (3 Jn. 7). We are not to merely inform them, but preach aiming

towards a response- our apostleship, our being sent ones, is ―for‖, eis, elsewhere translated ―to the

intent that‖. We should preach towards a response, expecting the ultimate obedience of at least some

of our audience. In 6:16 Paul specifically associates obedience [s.w.] to the Gospel with baptism-

this should be our initial aim and focus in witness. Peter likely does the same in 1 Pet. 1:2,22.

1:6 We are also called to be apostles- see on 1:1.

1:7 to all- not just the leadership. Paul valued everyone, including the illiterate majority of the

ecclesia to whom the letter would be read out loud, and upon whom the complexity and depth of

much of his argument in this letter would likely have been lost.

1:8 The fact we praise God and come directly to Him dia, through the Lord Jesus, does not mean

that our words come to the Father through the Son as if He were a sieve or telephone line. We come

direct to the Father dia, on account of, for the sake of, the work Christ achieved. The following are a

few of many examples which give the flavour of dia: John was put in prison dia Herodias, for the

sake of Herodias (Mt. 14:3); the Pharisees transgressed the commandment of God dia, on account

of, through, their tradition (Mt. 15:3); the disciples couldn't heal dia, for the sake of, their unbelief

(Mt. 17:20); the Angels of the "little ones" dia , for their sakes, behold the face of the Father (Mt.

18:10); because the Pharisees pretended to be pious they would dia, on this account, receive greater

condemnation (Mt. 23:14); the faithful will be persecuted dia , for the sake of, Christ's name (Mt.

89

24:9); dia the elect's sake, on their account, the days will be shortened (Mt. 24:22). "I thank my God

dia (through) Jesus Christ my Lord" (Rom. 1:8) doesn't therefore necessarily mean that Paul prays

to God 'through' the Lord Jesus as some kind of connecting tunnel; he thanks God on account of, for

the sake of Christ. The very same Greek construction occurs a few chapters later: "Who shall deliver

me...? I thank God, through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 7:24,25). He thanks God that his deliverance is

possible on account of the Lord Jesus.

First- the most important thing for Paul was that those he had expended spiritual effort for were

strong in the faith. We sense the same in John‘s letters of 2 and 3 John. Our focus should be on

helping others reach the Kingdom.

1:9 The Gospel- Frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel';

the Gospel is in itself something which must be preached if we really have it (Rom. 1:1,9; 16:25;

Phil. 1:5 (NIV),12; 2:22; 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:8; 2:8). The fact we have

been given the Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. ―When I came to Troas for the Gospel

of Christ‖ (2 Cor. 2:12 RV) has the ellipsis supplied in the AV: ―to preach Christ‘s Gospel‖

[although there is no Greek word in the original there matching ‗preach‘] .

Mention- the idea of the Greek word is of remembrance. Paul was bringing others to remembrance

before God. Paul is surely alluding to Is. 62:6,7: ―On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen;

all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the LORD in remembrance, take

no rest, and give him no rest until he establishes Jerusalem and makes it a praise in the earth‖. Paul

saw the Gentile believers in Rome as spiritual Jerusalem. It‘s not that God forgets and needs

reminding, but rather that by our prayers for others we as it were focus His special attention upon

them. Paul several times states that he is day and night, continually in prayer for others. He likely

had the Isaiah passage in mind; his brethren in Christ were now for him the Jerusalem upon whom

his hopes were set, rather than upon the physical city as had been the case in Judaism.

There is a mutuality between God and His children in prayer. We ‗make mention‘ of things to God

(Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:2; Philemon 4). The Greek word used has the idea of bringing to

mind, or remembering things to God. And He in response ‗remembers‘ prayer when He answers it

(Lk. 1:54,72; Acts 10:31 s.w.). What we bring to our mind in prayer, we bring to His mind. Those

who pray for Jerusalem ―keep not silence‖- and therefore they give God ―no rest‖ (Is. 62:6,7). But

the Hebrew word for ―keep not silence‖ and for ‗give no rest‘ is one and the same! There‘s a clear

play on words here. If we give ourselves no rest in prayer, then we give God no rest. His Spirit or

mind becomes our spirit or mind, and vice versa. And hence the telling comments in Romans 8

about our spirit / mind being mediated to God in prayer through Jesus, in His role as ‗the Lord the

Spirit‘ (Rom. 8:26,27). Yet God Himself had stated that He will not rest nor hold His peace for

Zion‘s sake (Is. 62:1). Yet His doing this is conditional upon His prayerful people not allowing Him

to rest due to their prayers.

Without ceasing... always is a double repetition to emphasize how constant was Paul‘s prayer for

others. In case it seemed he was exaggerating, he calls God as a witness. His prayerfulness- the

hours spent on his knees and the amount of mental energy in daily life- was amazing, and

inspirational.

1:10 Realize that prayer may be answered in totally unexpected ways. Paul prayed that he would

have "a prosperous journey" in coming to see the Romans (Rom. 1:10). Little could he have

realized, sitting in Corinth as he wrote, that the answer would involve many months of

imprisonment in Jerusalem, a shipwreck that lead to an ecclesia in Malta… and so much other grief.

But from God's viewpoint, the prayer was answered. See on Rom. 1:14.

90

the will of God- Paul felt that his prayers could influence or at least engage with God‘s will; he

prayed that he might at some time [Gk.] be helped by God on the road [AV ―have a prosperous

journey‖] to visit the Roman believer. He asks this not ‗If it be God‘s will‘ but he asks this might be

so en or in the will of God. He didn‘t see God‘s will as something to be passively accepted but

rather engaged with in prayer.

1:11 Paul so longed (the Greek is very intense, s.w. ―lust‖) to see the Romans so that he could give

them some spiritual gift. Why was his physical presence so necessary in order to give this gift?

Perhaps he refers to a literal laying on of hands which would‘ve been necessary to impart the Spirit

gifts? But that gift was so that they might be ―established‖, confirmed and set in their way. Was

there, therefore, a gift of spiritual confirmation which could only be given by the literal physical

presence of Paul? Or was the miraculous gift he intended to impart intended to be a part of

establishing them as group?

1:12 That is- Some manuscripts add ―However‖. Paul didn‘t want it to appear that he was viewing

himself as superior to them in imparting a spiritual gift to them, so he goes on to speak of how

spiritual strengthening is a mutual experience in which he also would benefit from them.

mutual faith seems to suggest that their strength of faith would affect Paul‘s faith and his faith

would affect theirs. Hence the value of positive spiritual fellowship in Christ.

1:13 hindered s.w. ‗forbid‘ in Acts 16:6, where he was forbidden to preach in Asia. It seems Paul

often worked against situations where He was forbidden to go somewhere- he still preached in Asia,

still went up to Jerusalem, and still insisted on going to Rome. See on Rom. 1:15.

1:14 Paul had a debt to preach to all men (Rom. 1:14). But a debt implies he had been given

something; and it was not from ―all men‖, but rather from Christ. Because the Lord gave us the

riches of His self-sacrifice, we thereby are indebted to Him; and yet this debt has been transmuted

into a debt to preach to all humanity. Reflection upon His cross should elicit in us too an upwelling

of pure gratitude towards Him, a Christ-centredness, an awkwardness as we realise that this Man

loved us more than we love Him... and yet within our sense of debt to Him, of ineffable, unpayable

debt, of real debt, a debt infinite and never to be forgotten, we will have the basis for personal

response to Him as a person, to a knowing of Him and a loving of Him, and a serving of Him in

response. If we feel and know this, we cannot but preach the cross of Christ. In Rom. 1:14 Paul

speaks of his ―debt‖ to preach to both ―Greeks and Barbarians‖ as the reason for his planned trip to

Rome- for in that city there was the widest collection of ―Greeks and Barbarians‖. And yet he later

speaks of our ‗debt‘ [Gk.] to love one another (Rom. 13:8). The debt of love that we feel on

reflecting upon our unpayable debt to the Father and Son is partly an unending ‗debt‘ to loving

share the Gospel of grace with others, to forgive the ‗debts‘ of others‘ sins against us. We have a

debt to preach to the world; we are their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (Rom. 1:14).

Time and again we commit sins of omission here.

Barbarians- Paul felt a debt to preach to them, the total savages [from his perspective]. And so on

the way to Rome, God arranged for him to be shipwrecked on Malta, and thus meet and convert

such Barbarians- for the word occurs only four other times in the NT and two of them are in

describing the people whom Paul met on Malta (Acts 28:2,4). See on Rom. 1:10.

Unwise- the Greek word is elsewhere always translated ―fools‖ in the AV, and has the idea of

stupidity, foolishness. Paul the intellectual felt a debt to preach to those who would have

exasperated and irritated him in normal life.

91

1:15 As much as is in me- a window into the totality of Paul‘s desire to spread the Gospel and

upbuild the believers. But the phrase could also indicate an obsession with going to Rome, as was

noted by Agrippa (Acts 26:32). See on Rom. 1:13.

To you- the ―you‖ in the context is the believers in Rome. Paul wanted to build them up in their faith

on the basis of the preaching of the basic doctrines of the Gospel. Thus there is a special emphasis

in this letter on the implications of basic doctrine, as explained in our introduction to the letter on

Romans 1:1.

1:16 Paul knew that his salvation partly depended upon not being ashamed of Christ's words before

men; hence his frequent self-examination concerning whether he was witnessing as he should. Thus

when he declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel, he is expressing his certainty of salvation; he

is implying that therefore Christ will not be ashamed of him at the judgment (Rom. 1:16; 2 Tim.

1:8,12,16 = Mk. 8:38).

When Paul warns Timothy not to be ashamed of the Gospel, he is therefore exhorting him by his

own example (Rom. 1:16 s.w. 2 Tim. 1:8,12). Note the theme of not being ashamed in 2 Tim.

1:8,12,16.

The doctrines of the Gospel are power to all those who have already believed. Paul was going to

Rome to visit the believers, and wanted to upbuild them by discussing the doctrines of the Gospel

with them (1:15).

1:17- see on Rom. 4:13.

Having spoken of how the faith of the Romans is spoken of throughout the ―world‖, Paul goes on to

comment that the preaching of the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God ―from faith to faith‖, or

―by faith unto faith‖ (Rom. 1:17 RV). The righteousness of God is surely revealed in human

examples rather than in any amount of words. Could Paul not be meaning that the faith of one

believer will induce faith in others, and in this sense the Gospel is a force that if properly believed

ought to be spreading faith world-wide? This means that spreading our faith is part and parcel of

believing the Gospel. Whatever, there is here clearly inculcated the idea of an upward spiral of

spirituality- from faith unto [yet more] faith. Faith, like unbelief, is self confirming.

A righteousness of God- a kind of righteousness which is given from God, given by Him; and Paul

will go on to explain that is ―of God‖, given from Him to us, by our faith in Him and in the simple

fact that He has indeed given us this gift in Christ.

The just shall live by faith- the quotation from Hab. 2:4 is in the context of human pride: ―Behold,

his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith‖. Paul is interpreting

this verse as talking about faith in righteousness being imputed to us, which leads to us being just or

justified before God. The practical result of this is humility- for we realize through this process that

we have absolutely nothing to be ―puffed up‖ about. Our uprightness isn‘t because of our own

works but because of God‘s righteousness being imputed to us by grace through faith.

1:18 is revealed- it will be revealed from Heaven at the Lord‘s return, and yet in a sense, judgment

is now, God‘s feelings about sin aren‘t restrained or passive until judgment day, they are revealed

even now.

Paul tellingly spoke of how people hold down the [conscience of] the truth on account of their

unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18 Gk.). When they come to know God, they darken their foolish hearts

(1:21). And so it was with the preaching of the Gospel in Acts. Those who heard it were pricked in

their conscience: some responded by wanting to kill the preachers (Acts 5:33; 7:54); others followed

their conscience and accepted baptism (Acts 2:37). We too have our hearts pricked by the Gospel-

and we either effectively shut up the preaching, or respond.

92

Paul could say that "the preaching of the cross is (unto us which are saved) the power of God" (1

Cor. 1:18). Not 'it was when we were baptized'; the power of that basic Gospel lasts all our lives. To

the Romans likewise: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (i.e. I don't apologize for preaching

the same old things): for it is the power of God unto salvation... for therein is the righteousness of

God revealed from faith to faith (i.e. faith gets built up and up by that basic Gospel)" (Rom. 1:18).

The Galatians needed to keep on 'obeying the Truth' as they had done at baptism (Gal. 3:1);

conversion is an ever ongoing process (cp. Lk. 22:32). It is "the faith which is in Christ", the basic

Gospel, which progressively opens up the Scriptures and enables them to make us wise unto

salvation (2 Tim. 3:15).

Who hold the truth- The point has been made that the Greek word for ―hold‖ can mean ‗to hold

down‘ in the sense of repressing the Truth. But apart from the fact that Truth can ultimately never

be held down, the word does carry the possible meaning of holding fast, possessing, retaining, and

is translated like this in places. It could be that there were some in the Roman ecclesia who did

indeed posses the Truth, but did so in unrighteousness- and thus God‘s wrath was especially against

such people. This would fit in with the impression we have from the other NT letters, including

those of the Lord Jesus to the churches in Revelation, that there was serious, gross misbehaviour

going on in the early churches- and Rome would be no exception. This group of people were those

to whom God had shown the truth about Himself (1:19). The following verses go on to allude to

Israel‘s perversions in the wilderness- and they were a people who knew God rather than ignorant

Gentiles. This group know God but don‘t glorify Him (1:21).

1:19 that which may be known- Gk. gnostos. This may be a strike at incipient Gnosticism; for Paul

says that such knowledge, such gnosis, is shewed to people by God. There are only some things

which God makes known to us about Himself; we do not have the total truth about God, we see but

parts of His ways and hear only a little portion of Him (Job 26:14). Our perception and definition of

―the truth‖ needs to bear this in mind. Absolute truth claims aren‘t simply ignorant, they lead to all

manner of relationship breakdown, arrogance and deformation of spirituality both in ourselves and

others.

1:20 Invisible things… are clearly seen- a paradox, seeing the invisible. Such vision is only by faith.

In the context, Paul is referring to those responsible to God. They are those who ‗see‘ by faith, they

are therefore inexcusable. One can have faith, even the faith that sees the invisible, and yet still ‗not

get it‘.See on Rom. 8:19.

Things that are made. The translation here is difficult. The invisible things of God are clearly seen

in the things He makes- but the only other usage of the Greek word is in Eph. 2:10: ―We are His

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus‖. The idea could be that the things of God are made visible,

the abstract things of His power, personality and Name are made concrete and tangible- in us His

people. We are living witnesses to His power and Divinity.

Without excuse- a legal term. The court of Divine judgment is sitting right now, and we who are His

people are without excuse for our sin. Paul is building up slowly towards the crescendo of

presenting us all as serious, inexcusable sinners, who can be saved by grace alone.

1:21Only those who ‗know God‘ have the potential to give Him glory and true thanks; but the

problem is that some can know God and yet not go forward from that point to glorify God.

Knowledge of God isn‘t therefore an academic matter in itself; it leads on to gratitude towards Him

and glory of Him.

Fundamentally praise is mental appreciation of Yahweh's Name, seeing His characteristics

expressed in all things around us, e.g. food, weather, situations in life etc. Knowledge of God (and

this doesn't only refer to abstract doctrine, but to an awareness of how He works and expresses

Himself in our lives) is therefore proportionate to the quality of our praise (Rom. 1:21).

93

Imaginations- Gk. dialogismos. Their internal dialogues with themselves, the internal self, the mind

at its deepest and most personal level, became vain- when the true knowledge of God should have

made them so much more dynamic, purposeful and productive. The focus of the Bible is so often

upon the ‗heart‘, the most intimate and internal thought processes.

The foolish heart of Israel was darkened / blinded, the Greek implies (Rom. 1:21). God gave them a

mind which wanted to practice homosexuality and lesbianism (v.28), and therefore they received a

recompense appropriate to the delusion which they had been given (v. 27 Gk.) . Note that their

punishment was to be given and encouraged in homosexual tendencies (diseases like AIDS are the

result of upsetting nature's balance rather than the recompense spoken of in Romans 1). Christian

men in the first century gave themselves over to sexual immorality (Eph. 4:19), and therefore God

"gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom. 1:24,26,28). ―Blind yourselves and be blind‖, God

angrily remonstrated with Israel; yet God had closed their eyes, confirming them in the decision for

blindness which they had taken themselves (Is. 29:9,10 RVmg.).Later in Romans, Paul speaks of the

Jews as the ones whose hearts were darkened (Rom. 11:10).

1:22 became fools- ―Became‖ implies that this is all talking about the people of God, who once

were wise, but became fools. S.w. Mt. 5:13 about the salt ―which loses its taste‖, lit. ‗becomes

foolish‘. However it is God who makes worldly wise people foolish (1 Cor. 1:20 s.w.), just as in v.

21 it is God who darkens eyes. There‘s a downward spiral, in which God is active and the dynamic

within it.

1:23- see on Rom. 5:12.

Again a paradox is presented- the uncorruptible, unchangeable God is changed by mere men.

Perhaps the point is that the glory of God, the extent to and form in which He is glorified, is to some

extent in our hands. We can in this sense deface His image by the distorted reflection of it which we

give. Note how they turned the image of God into the image of man; whereas the Lord Jesus, as a

man, became in the image of God (Phil. 2:7). The implication from Paul‘s reasoning is that

whatever we worship becomes God to us, and therefore we have re-cast God into that image. In a

world of obsessions, we are to ‗worship‘ God alone, and not reduce Him to the petty things which

people waste their devotions upon.

The commands concerning Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land form a large chunk of

the Mosaic Law, and thus these were only relevant to the younger generation and the Levites who

were to enter the land of promise (note how only those who were numbered and over 20 at the time

of leaving Egypt were barred from the land; the Levites were not numbered). This younger

generation were in sharp contrast to those aged over 20 at the Exodus. The extent of spiritual

despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the

circumcision of the children born to them then (Josh. 5:5,6), thus showing their rejection of the

Abrahamic covenant. There is good reason to believe that Romans 1 is a description of Israel in the

wilderness; notice the past tenses there. Rom. 1:23 charges them with changing "the glory of the

uncorruptible God into an image made like... to fourfooted beasts, and creeping things", clearly

alluding to Ps. 106:20 concerning how Israel in the wilderness "Changed their glory into the

similitude of an ox that eateth grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Rom.1 is

matched by Ps. 106:21 "They forgat God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness

sins in Ps. 106 is similar to that in Rom.1. "Full of envy" (Rom. 1:29) corresponds to them envying

Moses (Ps. 106:16), "whisperers" (Rom. 1:29) to "murmurers" (Ps. 106:25), and "inventors of evil

things" (Rom.1:30) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (Ps. 106:29).

Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each

other even to the extent of murder (Rom. 1:27,29). A rabble of about 2 million people living in

moral anarchy with little law and order, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had

rejected them is surely a frightening thing to imagine. The emphasis on sexual sin in Rom.1 is

parallelled by 1 Cor. 10 stressing the frequent failure of Israel in the wilderness in this regard.

94

Against such an evil and God forsaking background that young generation rebelled, to become one

of the most faithful groups of Israelites in their history. As such they set a glorious example to the

youth of today in rebelling against a world that mocks any form of true spirituality.

1:24 gave them up- s.w. Acts 7:42, where God turned from Israel because of their apostacy and

―gave them up‖ to worship idols. Again, God works with His sinful people by propelling them in a

downwards spiral. In this context He did this by giving them over to their own sexual lusts, which

resulted in their dishonouring their own bodies. God can confirm people in their sexual lusting; and

by implication, He can also hold people back. The perversions of homosexuality spoken of in v. 26

are all this come to its ultimate term- when people are made to feel that they were ‗born gay‘.

Unbridled sexual lust leads to self harm, a sin against self, in the sense that such behaviour is a

dishonouring [Gk.: shaming, despising] of one‘s own body. This suggests that the body naturally

has honour- Paul is attacking the view that the body is evil and to be despised, that God is angry

with human flesh as flesh. We take that glory and honour away from our bodies by sexual

misbehaviour. Paul uses the Greek word for ‗dishonour‘ only once more in Romans, in 2:23, where

he says that sin is a dishonouring of God. To dishonor ourselves, our own body, is to dishonor God.

For we are made in His image and likeness. Lack of self respect, an incorrect understanding and

perception of who we are, is what so often leads us to sin.

1:25 changed- Gk. ‗exchanged‘. These people once held God‘s Truth, but exchanged it for a lie.

The same word occurs in 1:26, where we read that women changed / exchanged ―the natural use

into that which is against nature‖. Sexual sin, not least lesbianism, is a lie. The born gay argument,

along with the argument that we can sexually sin and it‘s all going to be OK, is one of the greatest

lies.

The creation [created thing]- the context of this verse, both before and after, speaks in a sexual

context. The ‗created thing‘ may refer to the human body- for worshipping the created thing is

parallel with dishonouring the human body in v. 24. Praise and worship should be directed

ultimately to God; sexual immorality seeks to break the connection between God and the human

body, the awareness that the human being is made in the image of God. Treating people merely as

bodies is to sever them [in our minds] from their connection to God. By perceiving their connection

to God, we will never treat humans as merely bodies; nor will we perceive ourselves in that way

either.The Creator is to be blessed by us for ever- and so we should start living like that now, rather

than praising things He has created for what they are in themselves.

1:26 vile- s.w. ‗dishonour‘, 1:24. The dishonouring of bodies by homosexuality and sexual

immorality is a result of allowing ‗dishonourable‘ lusts / thoughts to be worked out in practice; the

performing of mental fantasy in the flesh. Paul teaches that God propels those who wish to give free

reign to their fantasies- He gives them over to their own lusts. Paul is using the example of

homosexuality as part of a build up to a crescendo of demonstrating the depth of human depravity,

and the subsequent depth of God‘s grace. He demonstrates the seriousness of human sin by showing

that God pushes people downwards in a downward spiral of lust, if this is what they themselves

truly wish- and Paul cites homosexualities as the parade example of this, whereby God so confirms

sinners in their lusts that they even feel that what is truly ―against nature‖ is in fact normal and

natural.

These things are "against nature" (1:26); it is therefore impossible that by 'nature' some people are

born with these "vile affections". "Nature" is used in Romans in the sense of "God's creative order".

It would be inappropriate and even cruel of God to create men with natural desires and then tell

them that these are in fact not natural, and He holds them guilty for having them. "Nature" (Gk.

physis) was used in contemporary Greek in the context of the God-designed, natural intention for

heterosexual relationships; Strong suggests it refers to ―natural production (lineal descent)‖- Paul

may be referring to how homosexuals can‘t reproduece. Plutarch speaks of "union contrary to

nature"; Josephus comments that "The Law recognizes no sexual connections except for the natural

95

union of man and wife". Physis is rendered "by birth" in Gal. 2:15 RSV. The homosexual is

behaving "against nature", against the way in which he was born. Seeing Paul makes no distinction

between different types of homosexuality, it is clear that all homosexuality is "against nature",

against the order of our birth and the Genesis creation. This disallows the speculation that some

people are born homosexual 'by nature'. If we accept this, we must see in Rom. 1 a distinction

between different kinds of homosexuality. And yet this distinction is totally absent. It makes an

interesting study to observe how gay 'Christians' wriggle on the hook of Romans 1. Their

explanations are so mutually contradictory and logically flawed that it is evident that they are

'getting round' and 'explaining away' a passage which simply flattens their position. Thus some of

them claim that in Romans 1 Paul is only condemning homosexual prostitution, because he was

ignorant of any other kind of homosexuality. This implies that had Paul known of the concept of

homosexual orientation, he would have written differently. This is a denial of Paul's inspiration, and

as we demonstrated in the first section of this study, to reject the inspiration of the Bible is

effectively a rejection of God. On the other hand, it has been claimed that "nature" in Rom. 1 refers

to natural orientation, and what Paul is saying is that it is wrong for born homosexuals to change to

heterosexism, and vice versa. However, this is assuming that Paul and the Bible are aware of the

notion of homosexual orientation. In this case, the other Bible passages which condemn

homosexuality outright do so in the full knowledge of the supposed 'fact' that some are born

homosexual, and yet they make no reference to this fact (even if it is granted that Romans 1 does). If

this were the case, these people are condemned for who they are by birth. The whole situation

would then be morally and logically fallacious. We just have to accept that there can be no getting

round the fact that the Bible does not recognize the concept of being 'born gay'. Homosexuals are

behaving "against nature", against God's intended order at creation, and are thereby perverts of His

way. The Greek para ("against") means just that. Thus Paul's accusers complain that he "persuadeth

men to worship God contrary (para) to the law" (Acts 18:13); false teachers create divisions

"contrary (para) to the doctrine which ye have learned" (Rom. 16:17).

1:27 Paul speaks of how sinful behaviour ends up in people doing things ‗contrary to nature‘; and

yet he uses a similar phrase to describe how being ‗grafted in‘ to the true hope of Israel, with all it

implies in practice, is likewise ―contrary to nature‖ (Rom. 1:26,27 cp. 11:24). We walk against the

wind, go against the grain, one way or the other in this life. And, cynically speaking, it may as well

be for the Lord‘s cause than for the flesh. See on Mt. 3:11.

The recompense refers not to AIDS but to God‘s confirming of homosexuals in their sin to the

extent that they believe it is natural and somehow coded into their bodies.

Error- s.w. deception. Homosexual sin is therefore the result of deception. Earlier Paul has said that

God has given over homosexuals to their own lusts, to the point they believe that their sin is natural;

here he says that homosexuals have been deceived. The deception is also by God, just as He sends

―strong delusion‖ [s.w. ―error‖] upon those who don‘t love the Truth, so that they believe a lie (2

Thess. 2:11).

1:28- see on Rom. 1:21.

Even as- the context is the last clause of 1:27, that homosexuality is an appropriate punishment for

the sin of homosexual lust. Paul here repeats that point- that God gave them over to that kind of

―reprobate mind‖. That God ‗gave them‘ this mindset is laboured three times (1:24,26,28).

Retain… in their knowledge- same Greek words only in Rom. 10:2, where Paul says that Israel do

not hold or retain the knowledge of God. So here in 1:28 Paul seems to have his mind on Israel

again, who didn‘t any longer retain or hold God in their knowledge, and so their zeal became not

according to knowledge (10:2). Of course the Jews would‘ve insisted that they were mindful of

God, they didn‘t become atheists, far from it. But God wasn‘t held in their knowledge, He wasn‘t

96

the defining reality in their thinking. Retain is the Greek word ‗echo‘- our minds should be an echo

of God‘s.

Even in this life, those who will be rejected have ―a reprobate mind‖ (Rom. 1:28)- they have the

mind of the rejected, the unaccepted [this is how the Greek word is used in every other occurrence

in the NT]. The mindset the rejected have in that awful day, is the mindset which they have now.

This is how important our thinking is. Our thoughts, the thoughts of yesterday and today and

tomorrow, will either accuse or excuse us in the last day, when God shall judge us according to our

―secrets‖, our inner thinking (Rom. 2:15,16).

The context of Rom. 1 is the power of the Gospel. Paul's discussion of homosexuality is part of his

demonstration that there is an antithesis to Gospel power; namely, the power of sin. He develops

this theme later in chapters 7 and 8, where he shows that the compulsive, ever growing power of sin

in the unbeliever or apostate is the antithesis of the power of the Spirit at work in the faithful

believer. Chapters 1 and 2 introduce this theme, and Paul is citing homosexuality as an example of

the power of sin at work within men, as the antithesis to the power of the Gospel. He makes the

same point in 1 Tim. 1:9-11. Paul argues that homosexual desire is God's punishment for men's

sinful lusts. The point is being repeated at least three times, such is the emphasis:

What men did What God did

Thought they were wise Made them fools

"Became vain in their imaginations" Darkened their foolish heart (1:21)

Had evil "lusts of their own hearts" Through these lusts God gave them

over to dishonouring their bodies

between themselves

Changed God's truth (i.e. His word,

Jn. 17:17) into a lie

Gave them vile affections which

resulted in them committing

homosexual acts

They refused to acknowledge the

claims of God (Rom. 1:28 AVmg.)

God gave them a mind "void of

judgment" between right and wrong

(Rom. 1:28 AVmg.), so that they

committed homosexual acts

Homosexually lusted for each other Gave them an appropriate punishment

for their error, i.e. homosexual desire.

It is clear from all this that God does something to the minds of men who justify homosexual lust;

He makes them lust even more, and they therefore commit homosexual acts, and He then makes

them want even more of such gratification. This is a classic example of the downward spiral an

apostate believer enters; God pushes such people into ever increasing confirmation in their evil way.

The fact homosexuals feel convinced they were born like it is an example of God confirming these

people in their desires. It must be noted that the text of Rom. 1 is largely concerned with attitudes of

mind; people have homosexual lust in their minds, and God confirms this by giving them a

homosexual mindset. This shows that it is not enough to simply abstain from homosexual acts; the

97

homosexual mindset is in itself sinful. "The lusts of their own hearts" is paralleled with "to

dishonour their own bodies"; "vile affections" with lesbian acts; "a reprobate mind" with doing

those things which are abhorrent. For this reason alone it is impossible to accept the reasoning of

Rom. 1 and also believe that some people are created by God constitutionally homosexual, with

these "vile affections" as part of their natural fabric. It has been pointed out by many commentators

that Paul in Rom. 1 is alluding to passages in the Wisdom of Solomon; and those passages are

saying that God confirms men in the unrighteous desires they have chosen to follow. God often

punishes men by turning them over to their sin completely. For example: "In return for their foolish

and wicked thoughts which led them astray to worship irrational animals... thou didst send upon

them a multitude of irrational creatures, that they might learn that one is punished by the very things

in which he sins... therefore those who lived unrighteously thou didst torment through their own

abominations" (Wisdom 11:15,16; 12:23). Rom. 1:29-31 associates homosexuality with a

descending spiral of all sorts of other sins: envy, murder, inventors of evil things etc. This confirms

that homosexuality is part of a general picture of sinfulness which is in opposition to the system of

righteousness developed by the Gospel.

1:29 The extent of spiritual despair, despondency and apostasy amongst the condemned generation

cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of their children (Josh. 5:5,6), showing their

rejection of the Abrahamic covenant with them. There is good reason to think that Rom. 1 is a

description of Israel in the wilderness. Rom. 1:23 accuses them of changing ―the glory of the

uncorruptible God into an image made like to... fourfooted beasts, and creeping things", clearly

alluding to Ps. 106:29 concerning how Israel in the wilderness "changed their glory (i.e. God) into

the similitude of an ox that eateth grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Rom. 1

is matched by Ps. 106:21: "They forgat God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness

sins in Ps. 106 is similar to that in Rom. 1. "Full of envy" (Rom. 1:29) corresponds to them envying

Moses (Ps. 106:16), "whisperers" (Rom. 1:29) to "murmerers" (Ps. 106:25), "inventors of evil

things" (Rom. 1:30) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (Ps. 106:29).

Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each

other, even to the extent of murder (Rom. 1:27,29). They were a rabble of about 2 million people

living in moral anarchy, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had rejected them. The

children of that generation who later turned out faithful- indeed the generation that settled Canaan

were perhaps the most faithful generation in Israel‘s history- must have had to violently rebel

against the attitude of the world and older generation around them.

Being filled- by God.

Murder- one can only be filled with murder if we understand murder here as an attitude of mind, in

the sense of 1 Jn. 3:15- hating our brother is murder. The context is speaking of how God is doing

things to the mind, the mental attitude, of sinners.

1:30 inventors- the mind is creative, inventive, and must be chanelled positively rather than towards

the invention or creation of sinful things. Note that the origin or creation of evil in the sense of sin is

within the human being, not in some cosmic Satan figure.

Disobedient to parents- this may appear a lesser sin compared to those which surround it. But Paul

several times does this- listing what some would consider an apparently minor sin within a list of

what some would consider major sins- to demonstrate that the apparently minor sin is indeed that

serious.

1:31 ―Without understanding‖ translates the Greek asunetos; ―covenant breakers‖ translates

asunthetos. The alliteration between the words is common in the Bible, and suggests that the Bible

was recorded in such a way that it could be easily memorized by the initial hearers- for the majority

of believers over history have been illiterate.

98

―Covenant breakers‖ and ―without natural affection‖ may be understandable in a moral, sexual context. For in 1:27 Paul has written of homosexuality as a leaving of the natural intent of the body.

―Implacable‖, Gk. ‗without [accepting a] libation‘ suggests that unforgiveness, or being

―unmerciful‖, is as bad as all manner of major sexual sin listed in the same list. Yet so often those

sins remain unforgiven by those who consider themselves more spiritual than those who fail in such

areas; yet such unforgiveness is of the same category as the grossest moral failure. Gk. ‗without an

offering‘, i.e. unwilling to accept a sacrifice in order to grant peace. This is a clear allusion to what

God does for us; indeed most of the terms in v.31 are the very opposite of what God does in the

atonement. His reconcilliation of us must be the basis for our lives and mental attitudes.

1:32 Who knowing- the relevance of this verse is to those who know God‘s judgments, those who

are responsible to Him. Those described in Rom. 1:32 know the judgment of God; they know it will

come. But they have a mind ―void of [an awareness of] judgment‖ (Rom. 1:28 AVmg.). We can

know, know it all. But live with a mind and heart void of it. Tit. 1:16 AVmg. uses the same word to

describe those who ―profess that they know God‖ but are ―void of judgment‖. We can know Him,

but have no real personal sense of judgment to come. These are sobering thoughts.

Commit- Gk. keep on practicing, in an ongoing way.

Such things- some of the ―things‖ listed in the preceding verses might appear to some to be minor

sins. But they are ―worthy of death‖ if we live in them. We need to think through that list in 1:29-

31. Disobedience to parents, lacking ―natural affection‖, not being faithful to a covenant,

implacable, not showing mercy- any one of those ―things‖ if lived in as a way of life is ―worthy of

death‖. Refusing to fellowship one‘s brethren, refusing to forgive, ignoring elderly parents... is

―worthy of death‖.

Have pleasure in- Gk. ‗to assent to‘, ‗to feel gratified with‘. We can so easily ‗feel gratified with‘

those who commit those sins through vicariously participating in them through watching and

reading of them, and psychologically feeling gratified by the sin. Paul seems to be speaking here

directly to the online entertainment generation... Paul may have written this with his memory upon

how when Stephen had been stoned, he had stood there looking on and ―consenting‖ with the

murder, stone by stone- without throwing a single stone himself (s.w. twice, Acts 8:1; 22:20).

Paul warned the Romans that those who ―have pleasure‖ in (Gk. ‗to feel gratified with‘) sinful

people will be punished just as much as those who commit the sins (Rom. 1:32). But he uses the

very word used for his own ‗consenting‘ unto the death of Stephen; standing there in consent,

although not throwing a stone (Acts 8:1; 22:20). He realized that only by grace had that major sin of

his been forgiven; and in that spirit of humility and self-perception of himself, as a serious sinner

saved by grace alone, did he appeal to his brethren to consider their ways. ‗Feeling gratified with‘

such sins as are in this list is what the entertainment industry is so full of. We can‘t watch, read and

listen to this kind of thing by choice without in some sense being vicariously involved in it- and this

seems to be exactly what Paul has in mind when he warns that those who feel gratified in those sins

shall share in their judgment. This is a sober warning, relevant, powerful and cutting to our

generation far more than any other. For given the internet and media, we can so easily feel gratified

in others‘ sins.

Paul reels off an awful list of sins in Romans 1, and builds up to a crescendo at the end of the

passage. We're left waiting, with dropped jaws, for him to come out with some yet more awful sin.

And Paul fulfils that expectation by listing the sin of having pleasure in those who commit sin

(Rom. 1:32). Immediately we who are not grossly perverted and immoral are shaken from our seats.

For in our generation like no other, one can secretly view sin, in movies, novels and on the internet,

and vicariously get involved with it whilst not 'doing it' with our own bodies. This sin really is

serious. It tops and caps and concludes the list of awful sins. And yet the whole section goes on to

talk about the danger of condemning others for such sins (2:1). It could be that Paul is suggesting

99

that by condemning others, eagerly exploring their sins in order to pass condemnation upon them,

we are thereby gratifying ourselves through vicarious involvement in those very sins. In this case,

the psychology presented would‘ve been 2000 years ahead of its time.

Those described in Rom. 1:32 know the judgment of God; they know it will come. But they have a

mind ―void of [an awareness of] judgment‖ (Rom. 1:28 AVmg.). We can know, know it all. But live

with a mind and heart void of it. Tit. 1:16 AVmg. uses the same word to describe those who

―profess that they know God‖ but are ―void of judgment‖. We can know Him, but have no real

personal sense of judgment to come. These are sobering thoughts.

2:1 Inexcusable- - s.w. only in Rom. 1:20, where lesbians and homosexuals are described as

―without excuse‖, inexcusable. The whole point is that those who are judgmental, in the sense of

condemning ahead of time, are in the same category. The point is very powerful and telling. Perhaps

Paul purposefully talks about lesbianism in Romans 1 because he knows it will shock and encourage

his readers to condemn lesbians etc., and thus he has set them up for ‗condemnation‘. Remember

that Paul isn‘t merely playing mind games with his readership- he‘s building us up to a crescendo of

conviction of sinfulness, which will form the backdrop for the good news of God‘s amazing grace;

and this, rather than ranting about sin for the sake of it, is the theme of Romans. ―Inexcusable‖ is a

Greek legal term, without defence / legal answer to make. As if whenever we judge others, we are

ourselves standing condemned and speechless at the judgment seat of God. The rejected in the last

day will be speechless, without any legal answer to make (Mt. 22:12). If we judge others, then we

right now are condemning ourselves, speechless and ashamed before the Divine judgment seat. In

this sense ―wherein‖, or insofar as, we judge others- we condemn ourselves. We ―do the same

things‖, not literally, but insofar as by being judgmental or unmerciful (the context is Rom. 1:31),

we are sinning in the same category of mortal sins which they are; for judgmentalism is as bad as

the list of major moral failures Paul has been listing at the end of Romans 1.

O man- Paul is writing with at least some reference to himself personally. To be judgmental and feel

spiritually superior to others would‘ve been frequent temptations for him. Paul often writes

assuming his readers‘ response being in a certain way. Here he assumes that having read his talk of

lesbianism and a whole catena of other sins in 1:29-31, that we will be shaking our heads and

judging those sins. But here in 2:1 he plays on that expected response from us [―Therefore...‖ is

without referent unless it is to our assumed response to 1:29-31] and basically says: ―Thou art the

man!‖. He confidently asserts that we who judge [in the sense of condemn] are doing the same

things. He may mean that we all at times commit the sins of 1:29-31 and so are guilty. Or he may be

saying that the very act of judging / condemning others is as bad as ‗doing those same things‘. We

must of course ‗judge‘ in the sense of having an opinion; but to condemn people in the way that

only God can is just as bad as lesbianism or whatever other sin in 1:27-31 we may wish to condemn.

Wherein you judge- the implication could be that if you condemn a person for a sin [in the sense of

prejudging God‘s personal condemnation of them], then you are counted as having performed the

very sin which you so despise and condemn.

Condemn yourself- By condemning others we are as it were playing judge, and whilst at it, we‘re

reading out our own sentence of condemnation. The practical result of all this must be faced- there

will, presumably, be some otherwise good living, upright Christian folk who come to the day of

judgment and are condemned to darkness and gnashing of teeth simply because they in their brief

lifetimes condemned some of the other sinners who are with them thrown out into condemnation. It

may appear bizarre- hardened sinners like lifetime perverts and lesbians are there on the left hand

side of the judgment seat along with the upright, righteous pillars of church life who never smoked,

got drunk, had a telly or broke the speed limit. But they condemned their sinful brethren, those with

whom they share condemnation. And that‘s why they are there. This reality needs far more than

some passing grunt of approval or sober nod of the head from us as we consider it. All this is not to

say that we in this life can‘t tell right from wrong- that‘s the point of v. 2. We are indeed sure of

100

what the judgment of God is about these gross sins, but we are sure of what God‟s judgment is- and

that, surely, is where the emphasis should be: ―the judgment of God‖.

We know right now the principles on which God will judge us. We can judge what is acceptable to

the Lord (Eph. 5:10- judgment day language). We can judge / discern those things which are

excellent in His eyes (Phil. 1:10). We are sure of what the judgment of God is going to be against

persistent sinners (Rom. 2:2); and yet if we condemn them, we can be equally sure that even now

we are condemned of ourselves, seeing that if we condemn, we will be likewise (Rom. 2:1). The

wrath of God is right now revealed, constantly disclosed, against sin (Rom. 1:18).

It is difficult to read Rom. 2:1 without seeing an allusion to David's condemnation of the man who

killed his neighbour's only sheep: "Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:

for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself‖. Surely Paul is saying that David's

massive self-deception and hypocrisy over Bathsheba can all too easily be replicated in our

experience.

2:2 we are sure- again, it is only the believer, the person who knows God‘s word, who is aware and

certain of the judgment of God. We can be certain that judgmentalism, lack of mercy and all the

moral sins in the list at the end of Romans 1 will all lead to condemnation; yet we still do them,

especially the sin of condemning others. This is the paradox Paul is bringing out- that we can be

sure, intellectually and spiritually persuaded, that sin [including judging and being unmerciful to

others] will result in condemnation- but this doesn‘t seem to mean we stop doing them. This is all

part of Paul‘s build up to the crescendo of conviction of human sinfulness which so urgently

necessitates our acceptance of God‘s grace.

Commit- Gk. ‗to practice continually‘, rather than occasional failure.

Judgment... against them- Language of the law court, whereby a judgment [the contents of the

judgment, rather than the act of judgment; a noun rather than a verb] is read out against a person.

The oft made distinction between the person and the sin doesn‘t seem Biblical- God‘s judgment is

against persons, not abstractions. It is individuals and not concepts which come before God‘s

judgment.

2:3 Do you think…? There is the strong sense in human nature that ‗this won‘t happen to me, yes it

will happen to most people who do that, but not to me‘. This aspect of our nature is at its most acute

when it comes to committing sin. Others will die, for sure, truly, definitely, for doing those things

(2:2)- but I will not. No wonder the sin within us is at times described as ‗the devil‘, a liar, a

deceiver. Yet this whole process of thought is described here as a ‗reckoning‘ [AV ―thinkest…?‖], a

process of discussion with ourselves. But it all takes place deep in the subconscious; for we don‘t

literally have this kind of conversation with ourselves. We see here how the Bible tackles sin at its

root- deep in the heart, within the subconscious thought processes, rather than blaming some

supernatural cosmic dragon. Such an explanation is utterly primitive and has no praxis, compared to

the Biblical definition of sin and the devil.

does the same- I suggested under 2:1 that this may refer to effectively doing the same, by

condemning the individuals.

Escape the judgment- Gk. ‗to flee‘. The rejected will ultimately flee from God‘s presence at

judgment day. Paul appears to be playing on that idea- they think they can run away from it, and in

the end they shall run from it in condemnation. All the same, apart from this word play, Paul is

highlighting the basic human tendency to think that ‗It won‘t happen to me. I can do the same as

they do, they may suffer the consequences of it, but in my case, I will not‘. Paul is addressing

himself to our deepest psyche and internal thought processes: ―Do you think [logizomai, to reason

out] this [within yourself], O man... ?‖. This sense that ‗I in my case can get away with it and not

pay the price‘ is especially pronounced in spiritual matters; the idea is that we can sin and not die

because of it. The psychology of criminal behaviour has emphasized this facet of the human mind,

101

but in fact we all have it.

The rejected going away into... (Mt. 25:46) is only a reflection of the position they themselves

adopted in their lives. They thought that they could flee away from the judgments of God (Rom. 2:3

Gk.)- and so they will flee from His judgment seat, although so so unwillingly.

The rejected going away into... (Mt. 25:46) is only a reflection of the position they themselves

adopted in their lives. They thought that they could flee away from the judgments of God (Rom. 2:3

Gk.)- and so they will flee from His judgment seat, although so so unwillingly.

2:4 Despises- we can despise God‘s grace if we condemn others; for who are we to say that God in

the end will not save the sinners of 1:26-31? By condemning others [which is the burden of 2:1-3]

we are despising God‘s grace, limiting it, counting it as not very powerful nor wonderful. And by

condemning others we fail to realize that God‘s limitless grace and goodness- the very grace we

wish to limit by condemning others- is in fact leading us personally to repentance from the sins

which will in their turn condemn us too.

Forbearance- Gk. self-restraint. God restrains Himself by His grace. Not condemning us is a

struggle for Him, and we despise that characteristic of His, ignore and downplay His marvellous

internal struggle, if we simply write people off as ‗condemned‘.

Leads- Gk. ‗is leading you‘, continuous present- all the while we are despising His grace, thinking

others can‘t possibly be saved by it, He by grace is trying to patiently lead us to repentance. The

only other time in Romans the word is used is in Rom. 8:14, where we learn that all the children of

God are ―led by the spirit of God‖ [just as God leads, same word, His children unto glory, Heb.

2:10]. This leading is therefore specifically to repentance, to actual concrete change in our lives in

specific areas, not just a general sense that we are ‗led on the journey of life‘. It‘s amazing that God

tries to lead even the self-righteous, proud and judgmental of others to repentance. In Rom. 8:14 we

read that all God‘s true children are led of the Spirit. Here in Rom. 2:4 it is the goodness, the

kindness, the grace of God which leads us- to the end point of repentance. We are being led

somewhere- to change, not just led on some road to Wigan Pier, to nowhere, led for the sake of

being led… a journey for the sake of a journey. It‘s common to speak of ‗being on a journey‘, but

the question is, are we arriving anywhere, are we coming to radical change, metanoia, or not?

Repentance- from being judgmental? For that is the context of 2:1-3.

The context of Paul‘s challenge about whether we despise God‘s rich grace is his plea for us not to

be judgmental and unmerciful. If we consider our brethren condemned by God and refuse to show

them mercy and sympathy, then we are despising God‘s goodness; we‘re saying that all the riches of

His grace aren‘t enough to save that person. Thus our condemning of others is effectively a limiting

and despising of God‘s saving grace. All the time we are despising God‘s grace like this, God‘s

grace is leading [continuous present tense] us to repentance of the sins which shall condemn us. The

implication is that focusing upon judging others results in little attention to ones own need for

repentance. This would explain why those so publically judgmental of others are so often exposed

in due course as having hypocritically harboured some secret vice or moral failure in their own

lives. Psychologically, this situation develops because their focus is so upon the failures of others

that they perceive ―sin‖ to be something purely external to themselves.

Paul summarises his argument of Romans chapters 1 and 2 by saying that there he has accused /

charged (in a legal sense) all men and women, Jews and Gentiles, of being ―under [judgment for]

sin‖ (Rom. 3:9 Gk.). With typically devastating logic, he has demonstrated the universal guilt of

man. Twice he stresses that whoever we are, we are without excuse (1:20; 2:1). All men have a

conscience which is dynamically equivalent to the specific knowledge of God‘s law; in this sense

they are a ―law unto themselves‖ (2:14- although this phrase is used in a different sense in modern

English). ―By nature‖ (Strong: ‗native disposition, constitution‘) they have the same moral sense

that God‘s law teaches. This is why human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong- it‘s

102

why, e.g., there is protest at ethnic cleansing. God is understood / perceived by what He has created,

namely our own bodies. But through, e.g., sexual perversion, man has distorted the image and glory

of God which he was intended to be, and has worshipped the created body rather than the creator

(1:20-23). Fashion, adverts and power clothing all do this, as well as the present obsession with

sexual expression. The Lord Himself taught that because we are in the image of God, therein lies an

imperative to give our bodies to Him. The goodness of God can lead all men to repentance (Rom.

2:4). God has set a sense of the eternal in the human heart (Ecc. 3:11 AVmg). An awareness of

judgment is alive as a basic instinct in people. God is ―not far from every one of us…forasmuch as

we are [all] the offspring of God‖ (Acts 17:27-29- stated in a preaching context), being created in

His image.

2:5 Hardness- Judging / condemning others is because of hardness of heart. Hardness implies that

the mortal sin being spoken about is a hardness of heart, a condemning of others (2:1-3). Later in

Romans, Paul associates hardness of heart with Pharaoh, who was in turn hardened by God in

response to his own hardness.

Impenitent- Continuing impenitently condemning others‘ impenitence is what will lead to our

condemnation; for so long as we continue condemning, we are treasuring up condemnation to

ourselves. The paradox is huge and crucially relevant. The wrath and indignation for which these

people are condemned (2:8) is surely wrath and indignation against those whom they condemn,

claiming to have the ―wrath‖ of Divine condemnation against others, a wrath which only properly

belongs to Him. God is leading people to repentance (2:4), but some remain impenitent. In this they

fight against God. He leads people by His grace to repent of their judgmentalism and condemnation

of others, but not all accept His leading.

Treasures up wrath- Every continuance in condemning others and being unmerciful is a treasuring

up of condemnation in the last day, adding to it bit by bit. Each act of condemnation, each incident

of rejecting others, is as it were heaping up a piece of condemnation for ourselves in the last day.

Our life is a laying up of treasure against the day of judgment (Mt. 6:19,20). The Greek orge

translated ―wrath‖ is elsewhere translated ‗anger‘, ‗indignation‘. These are exactly the feelings of

those who condemn others- anger and indignation. There is therefore a direct, proportionate

correspondence between human condemnation, anger and indignation against the weakness of their

brethren; and the anger, indignation and condemnation of God against those who condemn in this

way. Wrath... day of wrath- your wrath with others now (2:8) is going to be related to God‘s wrath

against you at the last day. Again the implication is that it is because people have shown wrath, i.e.

Divine condemnation, that they will suffer wrath in the day of wrath which is to come. The point is

that the day of judgment is the day of God‘s wrath, not ours; and the day for wrath is then, and not

now. It will be ―revealed‖ only then- not now. The emphasis is upon the judgment and wrath being

―of God‖, then- and not of man, nor now in this life.

Revelation of the righteous judgment- the Greek means ‗the verdict‘, the judgment given. This will

not be decided upon at the last day- it has already been created in this life, and we have created it

ourselves- for we are our own judges. What happens at the last day is that it is revealed. The day of

judgment is a metaphor- a human court sits down to assess evidence and pass a verdict. This isn‘t

the case with Divine judgment, as God knows the end from the beginning, and isn‘t passive nor

unaware of human behavior and the reasons for it- all at the very time it occurs.

There are several allusions to Job in Romans, all of which confirm that Job is set up as symbolic of

apostate Israel. A simple example is Elihu's description of Job as a hypocrite heaping up wrath (Job

36:13), which connects with Paul's description of the Jews as treasuring up unto themselves "wrath

against the day of wrath" (Rom. 2:5).

2:6 Who will render- the emphasis is perhaps on ―will‖, for Paul is addressing the subconscious

mentality that we ourselves can escape judgment (see on 2:3). ―Render‖ is the same word translated

103

―to give account‖- we shall ―give account‖ at the day of judgment (Mt. 12:36; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet.

4:5), ―render‖ [s.w.] to God the fruits of our lives (Mt. 21:41). So God‘s rendering of account to us

is really our rendering of account to Him- we are our own judges, we are working out the verdict

now by our attitudes and actions.

Render- ‗to give account‘. It would seem that in some sense, there will be a ‗going through‘ of all

our deeds, and an account given by God related to each of them. How this shall happen is unclear

(e.g. through the past flooding before our eyes like a movie, which is frequently stopped for us to

comment upon). But in some sense it will happen, in that not one human deed performed or thought

by those responsible to Divine judgment will as it were slip away unnoticed. This isn‘t only

sobering, but also comforting.

It is God who will render to each person their account- therefore we should not sit as judges (the

context of 2:1).

The judgement of works must be squared against the fact that we each receive a penny a day,

salvation by grace. Our salvation itself is by grace, but the nature of our eternity, how many cities

we rule over, how brightly we shine as stars, will be appropriate to our deeds in this life. Or it may

be that in the context here, the ―deeds‖ which will be judged are our condemnation of others. This,

as explained in 2:1-3, is as bad as the ―deeds‖ being condemned by us; and so there‘s a telling

appropriacy in styling such condemnations ―deeds‖, as if they are the actual deed performed.

2:7 doing- s.w. ―deeds‖ in 2:6. Yet how can the right deeds be rewarded with eternal life, given

Paul‘s teaching about salvation by grace rather than works? Surely the answer is in the fact that

salvation itself is by grace, the ―penny a day‖ of the parable which all believers will receive; but our

works aren‘t insignificant, and they will be judged and will affect the nature of the eternal life, the

salvation, which by grace we shall be given. Or it could be that the ―well doing‖, the ‗good deeds‘,

spoken of here are in fact a non-judgmental, merciful life. The good deeds are what we avoided

doing, i.e. condemning others, which is the theme of this section of Romans.

Immortality- To those who earnestly seek for perfection, who would so love to be given moral

perfection, who would so love never to sin again- they will be given eternal life in that state. Note

the difference between the ―immortality‖ which we seek, and the ―eternal life‖ which we are given

in response. The Greek for ―immortality‖ is also translated ―incorruption‖, ―sincerity‖- it has a

distinct moral sense to it. If we seek to live in moral incorruption, if our desire to be in the Kingdom

of God is because we so yearn to live without sin and corruption- then we will not only be given

that but also an eternity of life like that. But the essence is to seek to live in moral incorruption- and

then the eternity will come as a natural part of that.

Glory and honour- terms frequently applied by Paul to the Lord Jesus. The righteous seek His glory

and honour, and shall be given eternal life in which to do so. Or should we seek glory, honour- for

others? For love doesn‘t seek her own things (1 Cor. 13:5 s.w.). Paul could write of how he ‗sought‘

others‘ salvation (2 Cor. 12:14).

Paul tells the Hebrews [if he indeed was the author] and Romans to have the patient, fruit-bearing

characteristics of the good ground (Lk. 8:15 = Rom. 2:7; Heb. 10:36).

2:8 Contentious- Gk. ‗factious‘. The section is talking about those who condemn others (2:1) and

who are unmerciful (1:31). It is this which creates faction-for if one person condemns another, they

expect others to condemn them too, and cause faction over it. It‘s significant that causing faction by

being judgmental is chosen here as the epitome of wrong doing- despite Paul having spoken of sins

such as lesbianism in the context. His argument seems to be that condemning those who commit

such sins and causing faction over the matter is in fact a far worse sin. To be contentious – to be

divisive, endlessly creating strife (Gk.), is the very epitome of those who will not be saved. Yet

sadly, contention against other believers is falsely painted as ‗spiritual strength‘. This category of

people are later in this verse called indignant and angry- confirming the view that this group are

104

people within the ecclesia who are angry, indignant and contentious against others whom they judge

(2:1-3 sets the context).

Do not obey the truth- As we have shown in comments on 2:2 that Paul has in view here those who

know the Truth. The emphasis should therefore here be placed upon their disobedience to the Truth

which they know. And that Truth requires mercy, grace and non-condemnation to be shown to

sinners. That is obedience to the Truth. Or ―the truth‖ may be a reference to the Law of Moses, as in

Rom. 2:20; 3:7? Or to the Gospel, as elsewhere in Paul's thought.

Obey... but... obey- Paul introduces the paradox he develops so strongly in chapter 6- that we are

slaves, and we obey either the flesh or the spirit. For all our fiercely claimed independence, we are

presented by Paul as slaves with only two possible masters to whom we can yield obedience. What's

telling in the figure is that the 'master' of the flesh is actually our own internal passions of wrath,

indignation, unrighteousness. "Obey" is from a Greek word which really means to persuade. We are

persuaded either by our own anger, or by the Truth of the Gospel. The same word recurs in 2:19.

Obey... indignation and wrath- As commented on under 2:5, it is those who condemn others who do

so with indignation and wrath, thus heaping upon themselves Divine wrath and indignation at the

last day. We all have latent wrath and indignation within us- but we are not to obey those passions

in a wrong way. When we encounter the sinfulness of others, it seems that indignation and wrath are

aroused and this leads some to condemn others. But if we obey those passions- we shall receive

God‘s wrath and condemnation.

The rejected will want to be accepted. "When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction

cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you (quoted in Rom. 2:8 re. the

judgment). Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they

shall not find me" (Prov. 1:27,28).

2:9- see on Rom. 2:23.

Tribulation- we have the choice of tribulation now for the sake of living the truly Christian life (e.g.

Mt. 13:21), or tribulation at the hands of God and His Son and their Angels at the last day.

Tribulation was exactly what the apostate Christians were trying to avoid will come upon them at

judgment day. The 'persecution' or 'chasing' is perhaps a reference to the Angel of the Lord chasing

the rejected like chaff away from the judgment seat- the Angel will "persecute" the rejected along

dark and slippery paths (Ps. 35:6).

anguish- lit. 'narrowness of room'. They will have no place to run, compared to the sense of

largeness and freedom which will be [and is with] God's accepted people.

The anguish will not just be upon 'men' but upon every individual psuche (s.w. heart, life, mind) of

man who has been disobedient. The suggestion is that the punishment will be psychological, a

mental trauma.

that does evil- 1:32 has warned that those who don't so much do the evil but vicariously agree with

it are just as culpable. The 'doing' is therefore as much mental as physical.

The Jew first- because the Jews have or had greater responsibility to Divine judgment?

2:10 honour- the Greek word really refers to money, a financial price. There could be an allusion to

the parable of the talents, whereby the faithful receives the one talent which the unfaithful hadn't

used (Mt. 25:28).

The 'working good' in the context of 2:1-3 is not condemning our brother.

2:11 no respect of persons- i.e. both Jew and Gentile will be accepted in God's Kingdom. The

spirituality of the Gentile believers will be rewarded just as much as that of Jewish believers. That

the Jew-Gentile equality is such a theme in Romans would suggest that the ecclesia featured both

Jews and Gentiles- hence Paul's many OT allusions in Romans, whilst at the same time making it

105

clear in places that he is specifically addressing Gentiles ["ye Gentiles"].

2:12 perish- i.e. in condemnation at the last day? For this is how the word is used in Jn. 3:18; 2

Thess. 2:12; Heb. 13:4. "Judged" is being used in the sense of "condemned". Not only those who

knew the Mosaic law will appear at judgment day; some will be condemned there because of their

disobedience to that law, but others will be condemned because of disobedience to other principles.

Watch out for the use of figures of speech. How we interpret the Bible accurately depends upon

grasping these. Ellipsis and metaphor are the most common. Ellipsis is where as it were a gap is left

in the sentence, and we have to fill in the intended sense. Thus: "For as many as have sinned

without law, shall perish also without [being judged by] law" (Rom. 2:12).

2:13 Not the hearers- there would have been a great tendency in the first century as in our own to

think that regular attendance at a place of worship and simply hearing God's law read was enough

for salvation.

doers of the law... justified- Yet Paul elsewhere teaches that no works can bring about justification,

it is not of works but of faith in God's grace. I've observed several times in these notes so far in

Romans that Paul tends to use the idea of 'doing' with reference to mental attitudes rather than

deeds. Or it may be that Paul is here quoting a rabbinic maxim, and agreeing with it only so far- to

demonstrate that even passive religionists are all the same liable to a very real condemnation.

Mt. 7:21 = Rom. 2:13. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first

century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel.

2:14 Gentiles- Gentile believers in Christ. There's no article- it's not a reference to the Gentiles as a

whole.

by nature- nobody seems to be naturally obedient to "the things contained in the law", rather is

obedience and spirituality an hourly struggle. It's therefore tempting to seek to interpret this verse in

the light of the immediate context- which is condemning some [Jewish?] members of the Rome

ecclesia for doing that which is "against nature", i.e. lesbianism and homosexuality (Rom. 1:26).

The Gentile believers in that context of homosexuality were "by nature" doing God's will in that

area. Again, we see Paul teaching that nobody is 'born gay', such behaviour is not natural. Perhaps it

is in this context that we can understand the rest of 2:14 and 2:15, which seem to suggest that

conscience naturally rebels against such things. This is indeed the natural reaction to such

perversion.

It‘s easy to get discouraged in our preaching by the apparent lack of response. But all the witnesses

that we make, the points we get across, the bills we distribute, adverts we place… the people who

receive them don‟t treat them as they would say a commercial advertisement. Everyone out there

has a religious conscience- let‘s remember that. They know, deep down, what they ought to be

doing. And our preaching invites them to do it. If there is no immediate conversion, well don‘t

worry. You have touched peoples‟ hearts by your witness. Paul describes our witness in terms of the

burning of aromatic spices during the triumphant procession of a victorious general, in our case, the

Lord Jesus. His victory train goes on and on and on; and each generation of preachers is the aroma.

But in Paul‘s image, the aroma strikes the bystanders in only one of two ways: some find it pleasing

and life-giving, whereas others find it nauseating and deadly (2 Cor. 2:14-16). The point is, the

fragrance of our witness penetrates everywhere (2 Cor. 2:14), and it is an odour which cannot be

ignored. It is either repulsive, or life-giving. Our hearers will react in only one of those two ways,

whatever their apparent indifference to us.

2:15 also bearing witness- Along with the witness of God's law, their conscience also happened to

agree with God's law about homosexuality. 1 Cor. 4:4 warns that our conscience isn't so reliable as

to justify us at the last day; but in the 'natural' revulsion of the conscience against homosexuality,

conscience is a joint witness with God's law. Again, it's apparent that Paul didn't believe the 'born

106

gay' story.

thoughts- Gk. 'logismos'. The internal words, the conscience, accused or excused [both are legal

words] the behaviour; our internal words 'bear witness' as in a court, for or against us. Judgment is

ongoing; and we are at times our own accusers.

2:16 The focus upon our innermost thoughts and words spoken only within our own minds

continues when we read that God will judge the "secrets" of men in the last day. It's our thoughts

which are the essence of us as persons. These will be judged- and the context of 2:1-3 is of internal

attitudes like judgmentalism being worthy of condemnation at the last day.

according to my [preaching of the] gospel- the Gospel as preached by Paul includes judgment to

come as part of the good news. But the teaching about the judgment seat of Christ is only good

news for those sure of their redemption in Christ, those who are now suffering, those who now in

their thoughts and hearts are with the Lord but are condemned by others... for the day of judgment

will be a turning of tables, a replacing of the external with the internal.

2:17 you [singular] are called a Jew- it's as if Paul is in the middle of giving a lecture and then

suddenly addresses himself to one individual in the audience.

rests in [RV "upon"]- the Greek idea is of remaining. Again it seems Paul is addressing himself to

Christian Jews in the Rome ecclesia who had chosen to remain in the Mosaic law.

make your boast- as in 2:23, a reference to Jewish glorying in having and obeying the Mosaic law.

But Paul uses the same word another three times in Romans, about how "we" boast in our

reconcilliation with God (Rom. 5:11), in the hope we have of salvation (5:2), and also in our

humiliations which prepare us for that time (5:3). Our witness to others is part of this confident

boasting about God's grace. But we can only confidently boast of salvation and reconcilliation if by

faith we have assured ourselves that these things are present realities, and not merely possible

futures for us.

2:17-23 Paul's rebuke of the Jews in Rom.2 for their reliance on a mixture of worldly wisdom and

that of the Mosaic law has many similarities with Job:

Rom.2:17-23 Job

"Thou art called a Jew... and makest thy boast of

God, and knowest His will, and triest the things

that differ (AVmg.), being instructed out of the law;

A fair description of Job before his trials.

Cp. Job's constant reasoning with God

about things which differed from his

previous concept of God; "Doth not the ear

try words?" (12:11)

and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the

blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an

"I was eyes to the blind" (29:15)

instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which

hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the

law Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest

thou not thyself?

"Thou hast instructed many ... thy words

have upholden him that was falling... but

now it is come upon thee, and thou

faintest" (4:3-5).

Thou that preachest a man should not steal... commit

adultery... (worship) idols... dost thou?

These were the 3 main things of which the

friends accused Job.

107

Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through

breaking the Law dishonourest thou God?"

Elihu, on God's behalf, says that Job's

boasting of his righteousness implied God

was doing wickedly in punishing Job

(34:10)

Their belief that they possessed such great wisdom led the Jews to be self-righteous, in that they

reasoned that if they were wicked, then their wisdom would reveal this to them. Job and the Jews

were in this sense similar.

2:18 know His will- the very same Greek words which were spoken to Paul at his conversion by

Ananias (Acts 22:14). This is yet another example of where Paul's conversion experience is alluded

to him constantly, consciously and unconsciously, throughout his writings. Paul goes on to talk

about how this individual Jew of whom he speaks could approve or prove or judge / discern

excellent things- this surely is an allusion to the rabbinical process of casuistic interpretation of

Scripture with which Paul had been brought up, and which dialectic is so evident in his Christian

writing and reasoning. Surely the individual Jew whom Paul started addressing in 2:17 is in fact

Paul himself. Perhaps he also has in mind the Lord's teaching (using the same Greek words) in Lk.

12:47, where in the context of responsibility to final judgment, the Lord warns that those who know

His will shall be punished more severely than those who don't. Hence Paul's earlier comments about

"to the Jew first".

2:19 This verse and 2:20-23 sound so similar to Paul. He is the Jew out of the audience whom he

starts addressing in 2:17. Like Peter, his teaching of others is shot through with reference to his own

failure and salvation by grace; and he is at pains to apply the exhortations, appeals and warnings he

makes to himself personally.

confident- persuaded. The same word is [mis]translated "obey" in 2:8. There we read that we are

persuaded either of the Gospel, or by anger, judgmentalism etc. Who did the persuading?

Presumably Paul's own pride and / or the peer opinion of others in the Jewish peer group.

guide of the blind- this and the other similar phrases here and in 2:20 were all used by the Rabbis to

describe their attempts to make Gentiles into Jews by proselytizing. However each phrase can

equally be understood with reference to the true preaching of Christ as the light of the world.

As the Lord was the light of those that sat in darkness (Mt. 4:16), so Paul writes as if all the

believers are likewise (Rom. 2:19).

Paul points out the humility which we should therefore have in our preaching: there are none that

truly understand, that really see; we are all blind. And yet we are "a guide of the blind, a light to

them that sit in darkness" (Rom. 2:19). Therefore we ought to help the blind with an appropriate

sense of our own blindness. See on Mt. 13:16.

2:20 ―Instructor of the foolish… teacher of babes‖ are Rabbinic terms used for Rabbis and Jewish

orthodox missionaries bringing forth ‗babes‘ of Gentile converts to Judaism. Such people had the

―form of knowledge and truth‖ [another Rabbinic phrase] in the Jewish Law. Paul‘s hypothetical ―O

man‖ (2:1) is narrowing down to himself; for very few if any of the initial readership of Romans

would‘ve been former Rabbis, let alone Rabbis involved in missionary proselytizing. The only

Christian former Rabbi and travelling proselytizer we meet in the New Testament is Paul himself.

The allusion by Paul to himself rather than pointing the finger at any of his readership would‘ve set

them at ease, that there were no hidden messages nor hints that he was addressing a specific

situation or person in Rome. He was applying his principles to himself, and by so publically doing

so he appeals to each of his readers to likewise personalize the principles to ourselves.

2:21 Paul was teaching the Romans. Thus the allusion to himself is clear- he who teaches others

must teach himself, must apply to himself the principles which pass his lips so easily. He may be

108

referring back to his theme in 2:2,3- that we have a tendency to assume that Divine truths aren‘t

relevant to us personally, that punishment for sin and condemning others isn‘t, actually, going to

come on me, although we know it will surely come on others. And so Paul is saying that he too

must be aware of this- that he places himself in the audience of those whom he is teaching. See on

Rom. 3:19.

Not steal- Stealing was felt to be a crime which could and should be openly, publically rebuked.

2:22 Sexual double standards is perhaps the most obvious example of hypocrisy. Remember the

context of this passage- the list of awful sexual sins at the end of chapter 1 lead Paul in to a

discourse on the sin of condemning others for their sins, his point being that to do so was a

despising of God‘s grace; and that by condemning others for their sin we are in fact guilty of that

same sin. And so Paul could be meaning that if we condemn individuals for adultery, it is as if we

have ourselves committed adultery, for this would be in harmony with what he has taught earlier in

this section (see on 1:32).

You who abhors idols- Jewish Rabbis like Paul were well known for their obsession with making

any image of God.

Do you commit sacrilege?- Gk. ‗temple robbery‘. The theme which connects the three examples

given by Paul is that of stealing, taking that which isn‘t yours. ‗Do you steal?‘ (v.21) connects with

‗Do you commit adultery?‘ because adultery is a stealing of that which isn‘t yours but which

belongs to your neighbour (1 Thess. 4:6); and robbing temples is likewise stealing. Stealing was and

is seen in the Middle East as the social evil and crime which could be shouted out against the most.

Indeed in many cultures there is some equivalent of the English ―Stop thief!‖.

Temple robbery was something Jews were accused of (Acts 19:37)- according to Josephus they

were renowned for it, justifying it on the basis that the gods who ‗owned‘ the treasures did not in

fact exist (Antiquities 4:8, 10). So it‘s appropriate Paul would choose this example- condemning

others, in this case for idolatory, but to our own personal advantage.

2:23 You who makes your boast of the law- Again, this is surely a reference by Paul to himself, who

boasted of his Jewish roots and knowledge of the Law. The Jews boasted in God (2:17 s.w.) and in

His law. Later in Romans Paul talks of how the Christian believer boasts in God on account of the

Lord Jesus (Rom. 5:11 s.w.; AV ―joy in God‖). The Jewish boast in God was proven empty because

of human sin and hypocrisy; whereas the Christian can boast in God because s/he is confident in His

grace in Christ.

You dishonour / shame God- The same word has been used by Paul in Rom. 1:24 about

homosexuals dishonouring their bodies. Relentlessly, Paul repeats his point- the apparently grosser

sins such as homosexuality are just as bad and ‗dishonouring‘ as those who know the Law, even

boasting of it, and yet condemn others for sins like homosexuality.

There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because

as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot

Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old

woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously

angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame

and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects

them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (Prov. 12:16); A

king's anger is against a man who shames him (Prov. 14:35). Or consider 1 Sam. 20:34: "So

Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month...

because his father had done him shame". Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten

times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (Job 19:3). Frequently the rejected are

threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be

connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (Ps. 109:28). The

109

final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their

everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (Jer. 20:11). Seeing they will be long dead and gone,

it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout

our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's

preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow

thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the

Ephesians" (Acts 19:27,28). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too.

For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (Rom.

2:23); we despise his desire for our repentance (Rom. 2:4).

Break… the law?- The chapter has been arguing against judgmentalism and condemning of sinners.

This is perhaps the rank breaking of the Law which Paul is talking about.

2:24 The Jews were so sensitive to honouring God‘s Name that they wouldn‘t even pronounce it.

And yet their hypocrisy led to it being blasphemed world-wide. This is Paul‘s point- that hypocrisy

is as bad a sin as the crudest, most widely spread blasphemy.

It is written- In Is. 52:5, where God says that Judah in Babylon had caused His Name to be

blasphemed, but (the prophesy continues) because of that He would reveal His Name to His people

as it is in His Son, and they would ultimately accept Him and thus the blasphemy of God‘s Name

would cease. Yet Paul is writing in Romans to Jewish Christians. Clearly they had not really

grasped Christ as intended.

2:25 circumcision indeed is of profit if you obey the law- The corollary of this is that Christ will

―profit‖ [s.w.] nothing if we chose to be circumcised (Gal. 5:2). The analogy of a wedding ring is

perhaps helpful to explain Paul‘s sense here. A wedding ring, a ritualistic external token, is helpful

as a sign of marriage; but if one breaks the marriage covenant, the wedding ring [cp. Circumcision]

becomes bereft of meaning and just a pointless external physicality.

Circumcision is made uncircumcision- Humanly speaking in the first century, this was impossible.

Once the flesh was cut off, this was irreversible. But in God‘s opinion- and that surely is Paul‘s

point- circumcision no longer counts if the covenant which defines the Law is broken. The Jew is

therefore as the Gentile, the circumcised becomes uncircumcised because the Law, the old covenant

which defined the whole relationship, has been broken.

2:26 Throughout Romans, the point is made that the Lord counts as righteous those that believe;

righteousness is imputed to us the unrighteous (Rom. 2:26; 4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,22,23,24; 8:36; 9:8).

But the very same Greek word is used of our self-perception. We must count / impute ourselves as

righteous men and women, and count each other as righteous on the basis of recognising each

others‘ faith rather than works: ―Therefore we conclude [we count / impute / consider] that a man is

justified by faith without the deeds of the law... Likewise reckon [impute] ye also yourselves to be

dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord‖ (Rom. 3:28; 6:11). We

should feel clean and righteous, and act accordingly, both in our own behaviour and in our feelings

towards each other.

The readership in the Roman ecclesia appears to have been mixed, Jew and Gentile. The Gentile

world of darkness doesn‘t keep the righteousness of the Law. ―The uncircumcision‖ here must

surely refer to the uncircumcised Christian believers, especially those in the Roman ecclesia.

Indeed, ―the circumcision‖ in Acts 10:45; 11:2; Tit. 1:10 and Gal. 2:12 refers to the circumcised

believers in Christ; and so it‘s likely that here in Romans it has the same meaning. The Gentile

believers were counted as Jews, under the new definition of ‗Israel‘ which there now was in Christ:

―For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have

no confidence in the flesh‖ (Phil. 3:3).

2:27 Judge you- The Christian Gentile believers, who were uncircumcised, would judge / condemn

the Jewish Christian believer who trusted in keeping the letter of the Law and in his circumcision

110

rather than in Christ. They would ‗condemn‘ them in that at the last day, those rejected will as it

were be compared against other human beings and be relatively ‗condemned‘ by their example (Mt.

12:39-41). Paul has been emphasizing the need not to condemn our brethren (2:1 etc.)- he‘s saying

that it is God who will use us to condemn others, of His chosing, at the last day judgment. The very

existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (Rom. 2:27), just as Noah's very

example was a condemnation of his world (Heb. 11:7) and the very existence of the repentant

Ninevites condemned first century Israel (Mt. 12:41). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians

would judge an unbeliever (1 Cor. 14:24). The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons

condemned the Pharisees (Mt. 12:27). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted;

they will bow in shame at their feet (Rev. 3:9; 16:15). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge

angels" (1 Cor. 6:3)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Rev. 2,3? The point

is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this

was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the

supreme "judgment of this world"

"Shall not uncircumcision (i.e. the Gentiles)... judge thee (first century Israel), who... dost transgress

the law?" (Rom. 2:27) is an odd way of putting it. How can believing Gentiles ―judge" first century

Jews who refused to believe? Surely there must be some connection with Mt. 12:41, which speaks

of Gentiles such as the men of Nineveh rising "in judgment with this generation (first century

Israel), and shall condemn it: because they repented...". I can't say there is a conscious allusion

being made here. But the similarity is too great to just shrug off.

We may again need to read in an ellipsis when we read that uncircumcision fulfills the Law. The

Gentile Christians fulfilled [the essence of] the Jewish Law. This was a paradox- the Law demanded

circumcision, so how could the uncircumcised fulfil the Law? Another explanation is to understand

that they ‗fulfil the Law‘ in that God counts them as having done so. And as soon as we think about

fulfilling the Law, our minds surely go to the fact that the Lord Jesus was the One who fulfilled the

Law by His life of perfect obedience. And Rom. 8:4 makes the point that the righteousness of the

Law is fulfilled ―in us‖ because of the fact that the Lord Jesus died His representative death for us.

Thereby, His righteousness is counted to us. He, the circumcised, perfect keeper of God‘s law, died

as our representative. If we identify with Him by faith and baptism into Him, then women and

uncircumcised men alike are all counted to be as Him. And in this way, uncircumcised, disobedient,

law-breaking believers in Christ will as it were condemn those who have attempted to justify

themselves by the circumcision ritual and obedience to the letter of the Law.

By the letter- Gk. ‗gramma‘, s.w, ―Scriptures‖. Neither the Scriptures nor circumcision in

themselves make a person break the Law of Moses. So we must read in an elipsis here. By trusting

in our obedience to these things we can put ourselves in a position where we are coming before God

on the basis of justification by our own obedience rather than our faith in Christ. In this lies the

danger of ‗Biblicism‘ when it‘s used the wrong way. If we are obsessed with obedience to the letter

of God‘s Word and external, ritual signs such as circumcision, then we shall end up condemned as

law breakers- because perfect obedience to God‘s word is actually impossible.

2:28 He is not a Jew who is one outwardly was a radical, hard hitting statement. And coming from a

Hebrew of the Hebrews like Saul of Tarsus, it really was stinging. Self-identity in the Mediterranean

world of the first century was all tied up with who one was externally. The new identity in Christ

challenges our self-perceptions to the absolute core.

Rom. 2:28 explicitly states the principle of our real spiritual self being hidden, by saying that the

true believer will "inwardly" (same word translated "hidden" in 1 Pet. 3:4) circumcise his heart. The

works of the flesh are "manifest", but by inference those of the Spirit are hidden (Gal. 5:18,19). Mt.

6:4,6,18 gives triple emphasis to the fact that God sees in secret. He alone truly and fully

appreciates our spiritual self. This is sure comfort on the many occasions where our spirituality is

misunderstood, both in the world and in the ecclesia. Yet it also provides an endless challenge;

111

moment by moment, our true spiritual being is known by the Almighty, "Thou whose eyes in

darkness see, and try the heart of man". The spiritual man which God now knows ("sees") and

relates to, will be what He sees at the day of judgment. God dwells in "secret", i.e. in the hidden

place, as well as seeing in "secret". God is a God who hides Himself (Is. 57:17) due to human

sinfulness. If we fail to see the spiritual man in our brethren, this must be due to a lack of real

spiritual vision in us. It is human sin which is somehow getting in the way.

2:29 It was indeed a radical thing for Paul to re-define self-identity from the outward and visible to

the internal and invisible. External appearances were and are what define a person, both within

society and to him or her self. By becoming ―in Christ‖, this all changes- radically. ―Inwardly‖ is

the same word translated ―secrets‖ when we read a few verses earlier that God will judge the

secerts, the internal things (Rom. 2:16). This is what He looks upon.

It‘s significant that circumcision was in any case a private matter. The Canaanite tribes each had

various markings or tattoos, usually on the face or somewhere public and visible, just as many

African tribes do today. It was immediately obvious that the person was from whatever tribe. God‘s

people, however, had a body marking on the most hidden and intimate place on a man‘s body,

which was not on public display. This in itself reflected how relationship with God was and is

something intimate, personal and not immediately visible, in a sense, to the world around us. We

who line up in a supermarket look, smell, talk and chose our shopping in a virtually identical way to

the world around us. Our separation unto God is internal, intimate and not externally visible. Note

that Paul has been talking about not judging; and from that he moves on to talk about circumcision.

The connection is in the fact that we cannot judge others because we can only view them externally;

God will judge the ―secrets‖ (2:16), the internal things, because the sign of our covenant connection

with God is by its very nature internal and personal to the believer and God. We cannot possibly,

therefore, judge others- for we see only the visible and external.

Circumcision under the new covenant doesn't refer to anything outward, visibly verifiable. For now

"he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the

letter" (Rom. 2:29)- seeing we can't judge the secret things of others' hearts, how can we tell who is

circumcised in heart or not? The 'sealing' of God's people today, the proof that they are the Lord's (2

Tim. 2:19), is not anything external, but the internal matter of being sealed with the Holy Spirit

(Eph. 1:13; 4:30), or being sealed with a mark in the mind / forehead, as Revelation puts it (Rev.

7:3; 9:4).

Praise- We will be praised by God in that He will ‗go through‘ all our good deeds, when we fed the

hungry and visited those in prison (Mt. 25:36). He will rejoice over us, glory in us, in the way that

only a lover can over the beloved whom He views through eyes of love, counting perfection to us in

His eyes (1 Cor. 4:5). This is the real meaning of being ‗Jewish‘- for Paul is making a word play on

the word ‗Jew‘ coming from ‗Judah‘, the praised one (Gen. 49:8).

3:1 Whilst accepting Paul‘s Divine inspiration, I have always found the logic of this and the next

few verses to be difficult and twisted. It‘s as if Paul wishes to say something nice about the Jews to

as it were keep on board the Jews in his audience, having spoken against the significance of natural

Jewishness so strongly in 2:27-29. But what he says there isn‘t quite compensated for by the

reasoning he now comes out with- or so it seems to me. If natural descent is so irrelevant and

Jewishness has been redefined, what real advantage is there, then, in being ethnically Jewish?

―Advantage‖ translates a Greek word which is a superlative meaning more ‗pre-eminence‘,

‗exceeding abundance‘. Paul appears to say that the Jews do have indeed such a superlative

position; whereas elsewhere in this context Paul speaks as if the Jews are as sinful as or even more

sinful than the Gentiles, and that both are ―under sin‖ (Rom. 3:9). Both need baptism into Christ to

be the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). Paul‘s claim that their amazing blessing and advantage

is because the Law was given to their fathers seems to strangely contradict the Law being elsewhere

described as ―weak and beggarly elements‖ (Gal. 4:9), ―weak through the flesh‖, whose glory was

112

nothing, as dirty garments, compared to the excellency and surpassing wonder of Christ. I therefore

sugest in the light of all this that we may be justified in reading Paul‘s words in Rom. 3:1,2 as a kind

of sarcasm: ―What superlative, amazing pre-eminence then has the Jew! Or what profit at all is there

in being circumcised! Much every way, indeed! The important thing to note is that the oracles of

God were firstly given to them…‘- and then Paul builds on that point to speak of Israel‘s

disobedience to those commandments, leading up to his crescendo of convicting Jew and Gentile as

desperate sinners who must throw themselves upon God‘s grace.

3:2 were committed- Gk. pisteuo, God had faith in Israel (3:3), in giving them the commandments.

He believed in them. The God who can know the end from the beginning allowed His emotion of

love to take such root in Him that He as it were allowed His omniscience to be limited, just as He at

times limits His omnipotence; and He desperately believed in them. For loving someone elicits also

faith and hope in them.

3:3 Not believe- Israel never adopted atheism nor did they ever inform Yahweh He was no longer

their national deity. Yet for all their professions of faith and loyalty to the temple cult, God viewed

them as unbelievers. Or it could be that Paul‘s implication is that they did not believe in Christ, in

their Saviour Messiah.

The faith of God- God‘s faith and hope in His people. See on Rom. 3:2. The awkward translations

can make us miss the wonderful point here: Israel‘s unbelief didn‘t abolish [Gk.], do away with,

make of no effect [AV], God‘s faith in Israel. Here we see His love, His grace; a faith and hope in a

weak other party which can only come from very deep love. They didn‘t believe in Him, but He

didn‘t stop believing in them.

―Some" Jews didn't believe (Rom. 3:3); the majority, actually, but the Father is more gentle than

that. The whole tragic history of God's relationship with Israel is a sure proof of His essentially

positive character. Right at their birth by the Red Sea, the Almighty records that "the people feared

Yahweh, and believed Yahweh, and His servant Moses" (Ex. 14:23). No mention is made of the

Egyptian idols they were still cuddling (we don't directly learn about them until Ez. 20). Nor do we

learn that this "belief" of theirs lasted a mere three days; nor of the fact that they rejected Moses,

and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. "There was no strange god" with Israel on their journey

(Dt. 32:12); but there were (Am. 5:26). The reconciliation is that God counted as Israel as devoted

solely to Him. The Angel told Moses that the people would probably want to come up the mountain,

closer to God, when in fact in reality they ran away when they saw the holiness of God; almost

suggesting that the Angel over-estimated their spiritual enthusiasm (Ex. 19:21-24 cp. 20:18).

Likewise the Angel told Moses that the people would hear him, "and believe thee for ever" (Ex.

19:9). Things turned out the opposite. At this time, God saw no iniquity in Israel (Num. 23:21).

3:4 Let God be true- Paul is continually using legal language. Let God be found [in a legal sense,

through legal, forensic analysis] true [Gk.] and faithful by man‘s judgment of God. The amazing

statement in 3:3- that God remains faithful even when we are not- is hard to believe. Paul

understands our internal doubts as to the extent of God‘s grace as man effectively putting God in the

dock and trying the veracity of His claims. In one of the finest paradoxes of all, Paul will go on in

Romans to use this very legal language to describe how God the judge as it were turns it all around,

puts man, us sinners, in the dock, and justifies us the humanly unjustifiable.

Every man a liar- in that our false accusations against the real extent of God‘s saving grace are

exposed as untrue and lies.

That You may be justified- God comes through the trial of His grace by doubting man as justified,

declared right. And yet this very term is what Paul uses to describe how God declares us righteous

in His judgment of us. We judge God, but in the end, God judges us.

And overcome when You are brought to judgment [Gk.]- ―Overcome‖ is the legal word for winning

a case in court. It is our doubts as to the extent of God‘s grace, that He abides faithful even

113

throughout our unfaithfulness, which is effectively our bringing God to court, to judgment. Paul is

here quoting Ps. 51:4, which were David‘s words of reflection upon his sin unto death, and God‘s

forgiveness of him. He reflected that he had sinned so that God might be justified when He is

brought to judgment by us. Again we are up against an amazing grace. God uses our sin, our doubt

of His forgiveness, in order to declare Himself yet more righteous when He is put in the dock to

answer against our false charges: ‗Is He really able to forgive me that? Will He really not hold this

eternally against me? Will I really be saved, sinner that I am? Can God really accept me after what I

have done, all I have failed to do as I should, all I have not been...?‘. These are the kinds of

questions with which we accuse God. Effectively the case against God‘s grace is that He will not

actually forgive, justify and save weak sinners. And He gloriously wins the case against us. And He

even uses our sin, as He used David‘s (who becomes a figure of us all), in order to prove this to us

and to the world. And so, in a matchless logical tour de force, Paul triumphs in 3:5: ―Our

unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God‖, just as David sinned so that God‘s

righteousness would be declared.

3:5 Our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God- see on Rom. 3:4 ―And overcome...‖.

God commends His love to us in that when we were still sinners, Christ died for us, the just for

unjust (Rom. 5:8). Thus on all sides we have God‘s saving love commended to us- by our own

unrighteousness on the one hand, and by God‘s self-commendation of His desire to save us through

giving His Son to die for us, taking the initiative whilst we were as yet unborn and still from His

perspective ―sinners‖. The Greek for ―commend‖ means literally to place beside, e.g. Lk. 9:32 ―the

men that stood with him‖. God and man come to stand together in that court room. Our

unrighteousness and His righteousness stand together. The accused [God] comes to stand together

with the accusers [our doubts, sinful man]; and then the roles change, God becomes the accuser and

we become the accused, and He through His love comes to again stand with us, having condemned

and yet then justified us. Truly, even under inspiration, Paul is lost for words: ―What shall we say?‖.

David recognized that God works through our sinfulness- he is effectively saying in Ps. 51:4: 'I

sinned so that You might be justified...'. These words are quoted in Rom. 3:4,5 in the context of

Paul's exultation that " our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God" - in just the same

way as David's did! Because God displays His righteousness every time He justifies a repentant

sinner, He is in a sense making Himself yet more righteous. We must see things from God's

perspective, from the standpoint of giving glory to God's righteous attributes. If we do this, then we

can see through the ugliness of sin, and come to terms with our transgressions the more effectively.

And Paul quotes David's sin with Bathsheba as our supreme example in this. We along with all the

righteous ought to ―shout for joy‖ that David really was forgiven (Ps. 32:11)- for there is such hope

for us now. David is our example. And yet the intensity of David‘s repentance must be ours. He

hung his head as one in whose mouth there were no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord‘s

grace (Ps. 38:14 RVmg.). Notice too how Ps. 51:1 ―Have mercy on me, O God…‖ is quoted by the

publican in Lk. 18:13. He felt that David‘s prayer and situation was to be his. And he is held up as

the example for each of us.

Taketh vengeance- another legal term- ‗to judicially afflict‘. God would not be and is not wrong to

press the case against our sin to its final term- vengeance, wrath, as will be seen at the final

judgment. Would He be wrong to do this to us? Of course not.

3:6 God will indeed take vengeance, press the legal case to its ultimate end, in condemning the

unbelieving world. The judgment against sin cannot be minimized just because we know that it will

not in fact be meted out upon those who believe in Christ- see on Rom. 3:5. I prefer to translate this

verse as an exclamation: ―Because how much [i.e. ‗how severely!‘] shall God judge the world!‖.

3:7 The Truth of God- the profound truth of Rom. 3:4, that God is willing and eager to save sinners,

to remain faithful when we are unfaithful (3:3).

114

Abounded through my lie unto His glory- this is the same idea as in 3:5, that our unrighteousness

actually commends the righteousness of God. Every man is a liar, a false accuser of God‘s grace

(3:4) in that we all doubt the reality of God‘s saving grace for me personally. And Paul focuses on

himself- he along with every man is one of those liars. Yet his doubt, his false accusation of God‘s

saving grace, only abounds unto God‘s glory, in that God will and is finally justified in all this by

forgiving, justifying and saving us.

Why yet am I also judged as a sinner?- A reference to how his opponents judged him as a sinner.

But as he elsewhere says, we are to pay no attention to how men judge us, because the only

judgment worth anything is God‘s (1 Cor. 4:3). If we are judged and justified by God, so what how

men judge us?

3:8 Paul‘s opponents repeated the gossip [―we be slanderously reported‖] and fabricated primary

evidence that they had actually heard Paul say [―and... affirm‖] that therefore we should sin so that

blessing would come from God. Note the legal language again- they were as it were putting Paul in

the dock and making affirmations against him. Vilification is something which every preacher and

teacher of the Gospel has to put up with, and we shouldn‘t be surprised when we encounter it. Paul

speaks of such slanderers and word twisters in very tough terms: ―Whose damnation is just‖. This of

course is in the context of his having just pointed out that the legal condemnation of the unbelieving

world is just and right. He perceived his critics within the ecclesia as actually being in the

unbelieving world. He also sees their damnation as a present thing- human behaviour is played out

before the judgment seat of God right now. It‘s not that He is unaware of it and will only consider it

at the future judgment seat. Slanderous words and fabricated evidence against God‘s children is

seen as an ‗affirmation‘ made in the Divine court- and it will be judged with damnation.

To God, slanderers and false teachers within the ecclesia already are given their condemnation

(Rom. 3:8). "The Lord shall judge the people... God judgeth (present tense) the righteous, and God

is angry with the wicked every day... he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it

ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows" (Ps. 7:8,11-

13). God is now judging men, and preparing their final reward. For the wicked, the arrow is

prepared in the bow, the sword is sharpened- all waiting for the final day in which the present

judgments will be executed.

3:9- see on Rom. 2:4.

Are we better than they?- RV ―in better case‖, do we have a better legal case than them? The ―they‖

could be the Gentiles- as if Paul is saying that we Jews have no better case than the Gentiles. In this

case our retranslation of Rom. 3:1 [see there] would be the more justified- for Paul would be saying

that actually Jews have no real advantage over Gentiles. But the ―they‖ contextually would more

comfortably refer to the unbelieving world (3:6). We have no better case than them, because both

Jew and Gentile are all sinners.

We have proved- to legally accuse, RV ―laid to the charge‖. It is in fact God who does the accusing;

but Paul for a moment sees us as on His side, accusing all humanity, ourselves included, of sin.

All under sin- Paul alludes here when he says that ―I am carnal, sold under sin‖ (Rom. 7:14). And

yet he also draws the contrast between being ―under the law‖ and now after baptism being ―under

grace‖ (Rom. 6:14). Paul sees himself from outside himself when he says that he has legally

accused all men of being sinners- and he includes himself in that mass of humanity. Repeatedly, he

wishes to emphasize that he too is a sinner and not, as the teacher, somehow separate from sinful

humanity. He sets a great example to every teacher and preacher in the ecclesia. For he previously

warned against the human tendency to assume that what happens to all men will somehow not

happen to me (Rom. 2:2,3).

Paul speaks of both Jew and Gentile as being ―under the power of sin‖ (Rom. 3:9 RSV) – which in

itself suggests that he saw ―sin‖ personified as a power. If sin is indeed personified by the Bible

115

writers – what real objection can there be to the idea of this personification being at times referred

to as ‗Satan‘, the adversary? It has been argued that Paul was well aware of the concept of dualism

which the Jews had picked up in Babylonian captivity, i.e. the idea that there is a ‗Satan‘ god

opposed to the true God; but he reapplies those terms to the conflict he so often describes between

flesh and spirit, which goes on within the human mind.

3:10 The quotation from Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-3 is about the fools who say in their heart that there is no

God. Yet Paul applies this to every one of us, himself included. What he‘s doing here is similar to

what he does at the end of Romans 1- he speaks of the grossest sins such as lesbianism and reasons

that we are all in essence guilty and condemned as serious sinners before God. Here he quotes

passages which speak of effective atheism and applies them to us all, himself included- even though

atheism was abhorrent to the Jews, and Paul may have seemed the last person to be an atheist. But

the ‗atheism‘ of Ps. 14:1 occurs within the psychological thought processes of the human mind- the

fool says in his heart that there is no God. In the context of Romans, Paul is arguing that we call

God a liar when we disbelieve His offer of justification and salvation. To deny this is to effectively

say in our hearts that there is no God. If God is, then He is a Saviour God. To deny that He will save

me is effectively to say He doesn‘t exist; for a God who won‘t save me may as well not exist. Far

too many people claim some level of belief in God‘s existence, but in their hearts deny Him, in that

they personally doubt whether His promised salvation is really true for me.

3:11 none that understands- in the context, understands, perceives, the reality that God will really

save me.

Seeks after- translating the Hebraism for ‗to worship‘. Nobody really grasps the reality of personal

salvation and falls to the ground in worship as they should. If we would only let ourselves go and

realize that His desire to save me is greater than my failure, that my sin is no barrier to His grace-

we would be the most ecstatic and profoundly devoted worshippers of Him. But actually nobody

really is like this, for their faith is not total and therefore their worship cannot be either, whatever

outward appearance of ecstasy and profound expressions it may appear to have, in lyrics and music.

3:12 All gone... together become- although quoting still from Ps. 14:1-3, the idea is very similar to

―we like sheep have gone astray‖ (Is. 53:6). We sin because of our group mentality, the influence of

others is so strong upon us, we sin because we are sheep who follow the rest of the flock rather than

stand alone against sin. Peer pressure is simply far stronger than we can ever imagine. In the

context, Paul is reading ―all‖ and ―together‖ as meaning that both Jew and Gentile have alike gone

astray, united and undivided in their joint sinfulness, no matter how they may culturally differ in the

flesh.

None that does good- the Greek word essentially means profitable, useful. The contrast is with how

we are all become ―unprofitable‖- none is profitable to God. It‘s not that nobody ever does any good

deed; rather the idea is that we are like the vine tree, not useful of ourselves to God (Ez. 15:2-6)

unless He justifies us and makes us useful in His service.

3:13 throat... tongue... deceit... lips- the connection is surely with how Paul has said that all men,

himself included, are liars (3:4,7). Yet the lie he had there in view was the lie that God will not save

me, will not and cannot justify me as He has promised. And in this we falsely accuse God, putting

Him in the dock. Paul talks of this in the harshest of language here, as if we are poison spitters, the

seed of the serpent, in how we speak against God.This is a theme with Paul- to use exaggerated and

extreme language about our disbelief and sinfulness.

Because of God's abhorrence of sin, sins of ignorance were still counted as offences against God,

requiring atonement. This should really humble us- if we are sensitive to this fact. It therefore

follows that we should lift up our voice for understanding of God's ways, for ignorant sin is still sin

to Him- even though His judgment of us may possibly take into account our level of appreciation. In

this context we should also be aware that God remembers unforgiven sin. Over time we can forget

116

that we cursed our wife on 6.6.96 or whenever and never bowed down in repentance. But He

doesn‘t. The haziness of our memories can work as a kind of pseudo-atonement for us. With Him

there is no distinction between past and present and future. The sin remains before Him. By the law

comes the knowledge of sin to men, but this doesn‘t mean they aren‘t culpable for those sins before

God (Rom. 3:20; 7:7)- for sins of ignorance still needed atonement. ―Sin is not imputed when there

is no law‖ (Rom. 3:13) most likely means, in this light, that it is not imputed by those who do the

sin. But God still notices… We only have to consider the passion of Peter's appeal to Israel in Acts

3:17-19: "I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did your rulers... repent ye therefore‖. His

Jewish hearers would immediately have spotted the allusion back to the Mosaic protocol about what

to do when you and your rulers realized you'd committed sins of ignorance. But the sacrifice

required was now not an animal- it was the sacrifice of a broken heart and a baptism into Jesus.

It should be noted that verses 13-18 are quoting from the Septuagint of Psalm 14- they aren‘t found

in the Hebrew text. Time and again the inspired New Testament writers quote from the LXX rather

than the Hebrew Masoretic text, often preferring the LXX over the MT, and in this case accepting

the LXX addition of verses which the MT omits. It‘s hard to gauge the wider significance of this.

The LXX versions of the genealogies in Genesis would, e.g., not support the contention that the

Genesis 1 creation occurred 4000 years before the birth of Christ.

3:14 This and Rom. 3:16 especially could be appropriate to the descriptions of the rejected at the

day of judgment. The idea being that we are all rejected, for we are all sinners; but by grace, the

believers in Christ have been declared righteous. We seem to have Paul declaring the sinfulness of

humanity in the most graphic terms he can- quoting verses which immediately trigger the reaction:

―But that‘s not quite true of me. I may be a sinner, but I don‘t do that‖, e.g. cursing and

blaspheming all day long. I think this is intentional; for Paul writes very sensitive to his audience‘s

likely reaction. It‘s similar to how he speaks about the grossest moral sins such as lesbianism in

chapter 1, and then proceeds to count us all guilty in essence. It‘s a powerful device to try to

highlight to us all the extent of human sinfulness.

3:15 Shed blood- Paul may be quoting this and applying it to us all in the sense that he gave full

weight to the Lord‘s teaching that the hateful thought is as bad as murder. Or he may be wishing to

shock us with the extent of our sinful position (see on Rom. 3:14).

Eliphaz thought there were only a few very sinful people in the world (Job 15:35); but His words

are quoted by the Spirit in Is. 59:4 concerning the whole nation of Israel; and this in turn is quoted

in Rom. 3:15-17 concerning the whole human race. This same path of progressive realization of our

sinfulness must be trodden by each faithful individual, as well as on a communal level.

3:16 destruction- Gk. ‗a dashing to pieces‘, perhaps an allusion to how the stone of Messiah‘s

second coming would dash the kingdoms of men to pieces at His return (Dan. 2:45; Rev. 2:27). But

sinners are going now in way of such destruction. Damnation begins now- in the way of life people

chose to live.

Misery- the wretchedness of the condemned. But remember Paul is applying this to us all, as apart

from Christ we are all sinners, even now living out our future condemnation. Yet Paul uses the very

word about himself in Rom. 7:24: ―O wretched [s.w. miserable] man that I am…‖, going on to exalt

that Christ has saved him from that position, that misery, the misery of the condemned sinner. What

is true of all humanity is true of Paul too- he repeatedly emphasizes his own personal share in the

condemned human situation.

3:17 The way of peace have they not known- Remember that Paul is writing to Christians who have

known God‘s ways, convicting them that they with him are, naturally speaking, condemned and the

most wretched of sinners. ―Peace‖ in Paul‘s thought nearly always refers to peace with God through

forgiveness and salvation in Christ. It is this which they have not known all the time they refuse to

really believe that they have been forgiven and justified in Christ.

117

3:18 No fear of God- Again, the language appropriate to the most hardened, atheistic blasphemer is

being applied to all men, including Paul and all in Christ. This is Paul‘s attempt to shock us into a

deeper realization of how serious our position is as sinners. He has already convicted us of in

essence being lesbians and homosexuals in chapter 1; he has applied the language of atheists to us in

Rom. 1:28; 3:10. And now he as it were crowns it all by quoting a description of the very dregs of

human society, who live with no fear of God, and applying it to us- we who fear His judgment and

condemnation in our faithlessness that His grace is enough to save us. It‘s a paradox- if we fear

God‘s judgment, not believing in His grace, then we are categorized along with those who have no

fear of God.

Although I have argued that Paul is quoting from the LXX of Psalm 14 here in Rom. 3:13-18, it

would seem that this verse is also quoting Ps. 36:1: ―The transgression of the wicked saith within

my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes‖. This has a strange appropriacy. David says

that the sin of the wicked is speaking within his [David‘s] heart. This is the same spirit in which

Paul is applying the descriptions of the very worst of humanity and admitting that in essence, this is

what is going on within his heart and within the heart of every man. Truly, bad man only do what

good mean dream of.

3:19 ―The law‖ here seems to be used in the Rabbinic sense of ‗the OT scriptures‘. There seems no

sense if Paul is saying that the Law, the Scriptures he has just quoted, speak only to those ―under the

law‖, and that therefore the whole world is condemned and guilty before God. I think we have to

read in some ellipses here; the Message seems to get it right: ―This makes it clear, doesn't it, that

whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us to whom these

Scriptures were addressed in the first place!‖. This would be continuing the theme of 2:2,3- that we

are not to give in to the human tendency to assume that the consequences for all men because of sin

will somehow not come upon us personally. See also on Rom. 2:21.

Those verses Paul has just quoted, speaking of the worst of sinners, apply to us all (3:9,10). Paul

realizes we are prone to respond that no, that‘s not quite me… I‘m not that bad. And so he has

warned: ―Whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us‖ [The

Message]. The intention is that ―every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty

before God‖. The Greek for ―stopped‖, according to Vine, refers to ―the effect of overwhelming

evidence upon an accused party in court‖. It is the speechlessness of the rejected of which the Lord

speaks in Mt. 22:12. Each of us should so know our sinfulness that we really feel as if we are

standing at the judgment seat of Christ and have been condemned. We, along with all the world,

―become guilty‖, become sentenced [Gk.] before His judgment seat, right now. Only by having

some sense of this will we be able to have any emotion of relief, joy, gratitude, praise, exaltation

etc. at the wonder of having been declared right, accepted, by God‘s grace in Christ.

We can however interpret ―the law‖ as the Law of Moses. Its‘ purpose was ―so that every mouth

may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God‖ (Rom. 3:19). Paul is quoting

here from Ps. 63:11: ―the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped‖. He‘s reasoning that

because we‘re all sinners, we‘re all liars- for untruth is the essence of sin. We are not being true to

ourselves, to God, to His word, to our brethren… we profess covenant relationship with God, to be

His people, and yet we fail to keep the terms of that covenant. And the Law of Moses convicted all

God‘s people of this, and in this way led them to the need for Christ. Yet Is. 52:15 prophesied that

the crucified Jesus would result in men shutting their mouths. The righteousness and perfection

displayed there in one Man, the very human Lord Jesus, has the same effect upon us as the Law of

Moses- we shut our mouths, convicted of sin.

Rom. 3:19 (A.V.mg.) defines "all the world" as those "subject to the judgment of God" - which is

only the responsible. The Lord Jesus took away the sin ―of the world‖, but the Jews died in their

sins; ―the world‖ whose sins were taken away is therefore the world of believers. "Every knee shall

bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one of us shall give account" (Rom.

118

14:11,12) is another example- 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us the responsible'. "The

grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men" (Tit. 2:11)- certainly not to every

human being that has ever lived; but to the " all men" of the new creation. For not "all men" will be

saved. The Lord tasted death "for every man" (Heb. 2:9)- for every one who has a representative

part in His sacrifice through baptism. Christ "reconciled the world" in that He obtained forgiveness

for us (2 Cor. 5:19)- we are "the world" which was reconciled, we are the " all things" purged by

His blood (Heb. 9:22). 1 Cor. 4:9 seems to make a difference between "the world" and "men", as if

Paul is using "the world" here as meaning 'the world of believers'. The Lord was "a ransom for all"

(1 Tim. 2:6), although it was only us, the redeemed, who were ransomed by Him out of sin's slavery

(Lk. 1:68; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18; Rom. 8:13; Rev. 5:9; 14:3,4). The ―all flesh‖ upon whom the Spirit

was poured out in the first century was clearly enough a reference to those who believed and were

baptized (Acts 2:17).

Sodom being a type of latter day events, it is not surprising that Scripture provides a wealth of detail

concerning Sodom. The Genesis record summarizes what we glean from later revelation by saying

that " the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (Gen.13:13).

"Before the Lord" recalls the earth being "corrupt before God" prior to the flood (Gen.6:11), another

clear type of the last days. Indeed their sin being "before the Lord" may hint that Lot (or Abraham?)

had preached God's requirements to them, and therefore they were consciously disobeying Him.

Thus Rom.3:19 speaks of the world becoming "guilty before God" by reason of their having the

opportunity to know God's word (cp. Rom.2:12,13).

3:20 Therefore- because we are convicted sinners facing condemnation, no good works we do in

other areas can change the outcome nor displace the sins we have already committed. ‗Just‘ one sin

brings death, as evidenced by the sin of Adam and Eve. ―Guilty before God‖ in 3:19 is reflected by

―[not] justified in His sight‖ in 3:20. Because we are already standing dumbstruck and declared

guilty before Him, we cannot be now declared right, it can‘t all be made OK, by doing some other

good works according to that same system of law parts of which we broke. If you murder your

neighbor and stand in court condemned for it, you can‘t put it all right by then doing the good deed

of mowing your other neighbour‘s lawn and taking his garbage to the dump. Indeed, trying to obey

―the law‖ in one aspect isn‘t going to declare us right when that same system of law condemns us.

The only possible way to ‗get right‘ would be to somehow get to the judge through another

paradigm than obedience or disobedience to the law. And this is exactly what Paul is building up to.

For the Judge of all the earth Himself thought up such a way. Seeing that ―by the law is the

knowledge of sin‖, or as 1 Cor. 15:56 puts it ―the strength of sin is the law‖, a way simply has to be

found for our salvation which doesn‘t depend upon our obedience or disobedience to the law.

3:21 The righteousness of God- a poor translation which is out of harmony with the context of 3:20

[see there]. The idea is that the justification of God, the way God sets a person right, without

reference to the law, outside the paradigm of law- is in fact revealed (RV ―has been manifested‖,

already) within the Old Testament prophets and the Law of Moses itself. The Old Testament

scriptures are described with yet another legal term- they are right now witnessing in court,

attesting. It‘s as if we stood in the dock condemned and silent before God; but then the very law

which we had broken and the Scriptures themselves take the witness box- and offer a way for us to

be declared right.

3:22 God‘s way of putting us right operates through our faith in [RV, Gk.] Jesus Christ, which Paul

will later define more concretely in chapter 6 as baptism into His death and resurrection; for this is

what constitutes in the first instance our believing into Christ. Whoever, any human being, who

believes into Him will be counted right by God. And therefore ―all‖, ―any‖, who believe will be

saved, there is no difference or distinction between them in terms of their being Jew or Gentile. The

same word is used in this connection in Rom. 10:12.

119

3:23 For all- the context suggests that the enormity of our condemned position before God should

mean that we do not uphold any human distinctions between us, e.g. on ethnic grounds. Perceiving

the enormity of our sin, how we are all in this together, and the wonder of God‘s saving grace,

ought to be the most powerful inspiration to unity known to humanity. The ―all‖ who have sinned

could refer to ‗all believers in Christ‘ which is the subject of the preceding verse 3:22; and 3:24

suggests that this same ―all‖ are those who are justified freely by His grace.

Come short of the glory of God- We have all already sinned [aorist past tense] and we do now

[present tense] fall short of God‘s glory, i.e. the complete perfection, the glory of God which was

seen in the person of His Son (2 Cor. 4:6). God declared His glory to Moses in terms of His

character (Ex. 33:18 cp. Ex. 34:4-6). We fall short of that perfection of the Father‘s character which

was revealed in its fullness in His Son. Heb. 12:15 uses the same Greek word for ―come / fall short‖

in warning lest any man ―fail / fall short of the grace of God‖. We come far short of God‘s glory,

but we are not to fall short of His grace whereby the righteousness of His Son, His glory, is counted

to us and we are thereby declared right with Him. Jewish writings such as the Apocalypse of Moses

20.2 and 21.6 claimed that Adam ―came short of the glory of God‖ by his sin in Eden; Paul is

clearly alluding to this and is saying that Adam is everyman, we each are as Adam in Eden, with the

tidal wave of realization breaking upon us as to the seriousness and eternal consequence of our so

easily committed sin. It must be remembered that the Jewish writings frequently paralleled Adam

with Israel (N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) pp. 18-40

for documentation). But Paul is arguing that Adam is every single human being, not just Israel. For

Adam was created well before Israel, and all humanity are his offspring, not just Israel. The

universal experience of sinfulness therefore leads to the offer of God‘s grace to all types of human

being, not just Israel; and there will be an ensuing unity between those who believe in this grace,

regardless of their ethnic background.

The Bible itself continually reflects a distinction in the mind of God between the person and the

behaviour, the sin and the sinner. When we allow ourselves to be offended and to offend others, we

have ceased to make that differentiation. We so easily equate the person and their behaviour, and

thus they offend us. Consider how we are in the habit of saying: ―We‘re all sinners‖. You may think

I‘m being pedantic, but Rom. 3:23 says otherwise- that ―all have sinned‖. And there‘s a slight and

subtle difference. We have committed sin, and therefore we can be called sinners. But the Biblical

focus is on the action committed rather than the branding of the person with a label.

3:24 freely- Gk. ‗without a cause / reason, as a gift‘. We are justified, declared right in our court

case, for no reason. This declaring right is therefore by the purest grace imaginable. The same word

is used of how we should freely, without a human reason, preach the Gospel (Mt. 10:8; 2 Cor. 11:7);

our receipt of such a ―free‖ salvation should naturally inspire us to share it with others in the same

spirit. Any form of charging for the Gospel, getting personal benefit or glory out of sharing it with

others, is absolutely outlawed. The free nature of the grace we have received must be reflected in

our sharing it with others in the same spirit; God‘s giving to us has to be translated in our giving to

others. Sharing the Gospel isn‘t, therefore, an irksome duty, something we salve our conscience

with, something we are asked to participate in by a church leadership team; but a natural personal

outflowing of the free gift we have received.

The redemption- We are declared right here and now, we receive redemption in that our sins are

forgiven (Eph. 1:7); but redemption is in fact a process, culminating in the redemption of our body

at the return of Christ, the final change from mortality to immortality in a corporeal, literal sense

(s.w. Rom. 8:23), in ―the day of redemption‖ (Eph. 4:30).

3:25 Set forth -―Whom God put forward as a place of atonement by his blood‖ (NRSV margin)

seems to be the right sense. The reference is to the mercy seat, not to the sacrificed animal. Vincent

comments: ―The word is used by Herodotus of exposing corpses (v. 8); by Thucydides of exposing

the bones of the dead (ii. 34)‖. The sense of public display is picked up later in the verse in the word

120

―declare‖. Crucifixion is by its very nature a public event. There was once a doctor in Paraguay who

spoke out against human rights abuses. Local police took their revenge by torturing his teenage son

to death. The local people wanted to stage a huge protest march, but the father disallowed them and

chose another means of protest. At the funeral, the father displayed his son‘s body as it was when

retrieved from jail- naked, scarred from electric shocks, cigarette burns and beatings. And the body

was displayed not in a coffin but on the blood-soaked prison mattress. This public display of a body

was the most powerful witness and incitement possible. And the public nature of the display of

God‘s tortured son was for the same basic reason. ―He was manifested, that he might put sins away"

(1 Jn. 3:5) could suggest that in His atoning death, ‗He‘ was manifested. There God set forth Jesus

in His blood, for all to see and respond to (Rom. 3:25 Gk.). There the real essence of Jesus was

publicly shown forth. And there we come to know what love is (1 Jn. 3:16).

A propitiation- the Greek word doesn‘t have to mean ―mercy seat‖ / atonement cover, with

reference to the ark, even though this is how it is translated in Hebrews. The idea is essentially a

place of atonement or the atonement victim, the sacrificed animal. Instead of that place of blood

sprinkling been hidden away on the top of the atonement cover, the ark of the covenant within the

Most Holy Place which the High Priest saw only once per year, God through the cross set forth

publically, He declared, the place of atonement to be in the very publically displayed blood of His

Son. The public nature of crucifixion therefore was appropriate. The Son of Man had to be,

therefore, ―lifted up‖ (Jn. 3:14) so that He could and can be believed in. Rom. 3:25 states that the

Lord in His death was "set forth to be a propitiation". Graham Jackman comments: "Though the

primary meaning of the word ‗set forth‘ (protithemi) seems to be that of ‗determining‘ or

‗purposing‘, another sense, albeit not in the New Testament, is said to be that of exposing the bodies

of the dead to public view, as in a lying in state". See on Mk. 15:29.

To declare- see on ―set forth‖. But the word also carries the sense of setting forth evidence, proof.

The legal flavor could possibly suggest that the blood of Christ, His death upon the cross, is brought

forth as a proof in the court case that actually, we really have been declared in the right. Whilst

Christ‘s death was multifactorial, it would be true to say that God could have saved us any way He

chose, without being forced, as it were, to have a begotten Son who was publically crucified. Maybe

He did this because He so so wishes us to believe, and He wanted to commend His love in all its

depth and costliness as publically as possible, so that we would indeed perceive and believe it.

God‘s method of declaring us right deals with the sins ―that are past‖, for which we stand

condemned before His judgment seat with no way to make amends; and also ―at this time‖ (3:26),

right now, we are declared righteous by status, declared in the right, if we are believers into Jesus.

Forbearance- We shall all be saved by the forbearance of God, hence we should not deny to others

the forbearance of God. Hence in Rom. 2:4 the same word is used, in stating that those who

condemn their brethren are despising the forbearance of God, in that they are assuming that His

forbearance can‘t apply to the person whom they have condemned. If we are saved by God‘s

gracious forbearance, it‘s not for us to deny this to another.

3:26 Declare… at this time- see on Rom. 3:25.

That He might be just- the whole process of justifying sinners is achieved without infringing upon

the justice and integrity of God. Quite how… isn‘t explained (although I am aware of many

attempts to explain it, but they all seem to fail). I think we are asked to accept this on faith.

And the justifier- God‘s plan of declaring us right takes care of our past sins (Rom. 3:25), right now

―at this time‖ declares us right, and will justify us at the coming day of judgment.

In Jesus- It‘s rare for Paul to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as simply ―Jesus‖ with no title. Perhaps

he is trying to bring out the simplicity of it all- that by believing in the very human Jesus, a man of

our nature with one of the commonest names amongst first century Palestinian Jews, i.e. ‗Jesus‘, we

really can be declared right before God.

121

3:27 Boasting- the Jewish boasting about obedience to the Mosaic Law of Rom. 2:17. If we are

saved by grace, any feelings of superiority are excluded. ―It is excluded‖ is a mild way of translating

the aorist- the sense is that boasting has once for all been cut off, ended, excluded; by the death of

Christ, and by that moment when we believed into Christ, and stood declared righteous before the

judgment seat of Christ. Paul must refer to boasting in a wrong sense, a boasting in our works and

obedience; for he uses the word quite often in his letters of his boasting of God‘s grace, and of the

faithfulness of other brethren which had been inspired by that grace (e.g. 2 Cor. 7:4,14; 8:24; 9:4;

11:10,17).

By what law? Of works?- Boasting in the sense of feeling superior to others hasn‘t been excluded by

law, i.e. it‘s not that we no longer boast because there‘s a law that says ‗You shall not boast‘. It has

been cut off by the law or principle of salvation by faith rather than works. This simple reality, that

we really are saved, not by works but by faith in God‘s grace through Jesus, is so powerful that it

quite naturally excludes boasting.

3:28- see on Rom. 2:26.

We conclude- the legal sense of the word refers to the summing up of a court case. Here again, Paul

assumes the role of judge. The summary of the case is that a man is declared right by God on

account of his faith in God‘s grace and the blood of Christ. This is ―without‖, quite apart from, any

acts of obedience to law.

3:29 God of the Jews only? Paul brings out the practical implications of the doctrine of justification

by faith in God‘s grace. Seeing that all men are sinners, and the basis of salvation is our faith in His

grace through the blood of Christ- there can be no basic division between believers. God becomes

―the God‖ of those He has saved, that seems to be implication- and so He isn‘t the God of only the

Jews.

The Roman concept of religio allowed each subject nation to have their own gods, so long as the

cult of the emperor was also worshipped. But Rom. 3:29 states that the God of Israel was the one

God of the Gentiles too. This is in sharp distinction to the way the Romans thought of the god of the

Jews as just another national deity. Caesar was king of many subject kings, Lord of many conquered

and inferior lords. In this we see the radical challenge of 1 Tim. 6:15,16: that Jesus Christ is the only

potentate, the Lord of Lords, the King of all Kings.

3:30 It is one God- the belief which the Jews held most dear; they felt that their monotheism divided

them from the rest of the world. But it is the fact that there‘s only one God which binds together Jew

and Gentile believers in Christ; for that one God justifies each human being on the same basis. The

seriousness of our personal positions and the wonder of His saving grace is such that any ethnic

difference between us becomes irrelevant.

By faith… through faith. The Greek words ek [―by‖] and dia [―through‖] may simply be being used

in parallel, meaning effectively the same thing, as they are in Gal. 2:16. ―The circumcision‖ refers

to Jewish Christians who believed; ―the uncircumcision‖ is perhaps also a technical term, in this

context, for believing Christian Gentiles.

That God is one is not just a numerical description. If there is only one God, He therefore demands

our all. Because He is the One God, He demands all our worship; and because He is One, He

therefore treats all His people the same, regardless, e.g., of their nationality (Rom. 3:30). All true

worshippers of the one God, whether Jew or Gentile, are united in that the one God offers salvation

to them on the same basis. The fact there is only one Lord Jesus implies the same for Him (Rom.

10:12). Paul saw these implications in the doctrine of the unity of God. But that doctrine needs

reflecting on before we come to grasp these conclusions.

Paul, writing to those who thought they believed in the unity of God, had to remind them that this

simple fact implies the need for unity amongst us His children, seeing He treats us all equally as a

122

truly good Father: " If so be that God is one... he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and

[likewise] the uncircumcision through faith" (Rom. 3:30 RV). Unity amongst us is inspired by the

fact that God seeks to be one with us, exactly because He is Himself 'unity', one in Himself. The

Rabbis have always been at pains to point out the somewhat unusual grammar in the record of

creation in Genesis 1, which literally translated reads: "One day... a second day... a third day", rather

than 'One day... two days... three days', as we'd expect if 'Day one' solely referred to 'firstness' in

terms of time. "The first day" (Gen. 1:5) therefore means more strictly 'the day of unity', in that it

refers to how the one God sought unity with earth. "Yom ehad, one day, really means the day which

God desired to be one with man... the unity of God is a concern for the unity of the world".

3:31Make void- Consider where the same word is used in the context of showing that the Law has

indeed been ‗made void‘ or done away: Rom. 7:2, we are ―loosed‖ from the Law, ―delivered from

the Law‖ (Rom. 7:6), the Law was ―done away‖ (2 Cor. 3:11), ―abolished‖ (2 Cor. 3:13), ―done

away‖ (2 Cor. 3:14), ―abolished… the law of commandments‖ (Eph. 2:15). Clearly enough, the Law

is indeed ―made void‖- by the death of Christ. The emphasis should therefore be on the fact that it is

not us (―we‖), who made it void. We as lawbreakers have no right to simply abrogate Divine Law,

to void it because we broke it and we want to avoid the consequences. It can only be done by the

Divine lawmaker and His Son. Our faith in Him and His saving grace doesn‘t mean that we make

the law void; we by our sinfulness and acceptance of it do in fact establish or ‗make to stand‘ Divine

law. Paul is anticipating the objections of his Jewish audience- that he was teaching that sinners

could merely abrogate the Law they had broken. We sense how on the back foot Paul was- his

critics must have been persistent, and his stress level must have been very high by constantly

seeking to anticipate their objections and parry them [did he actually need to have done this?]. By

believing in God‘s grace in Christ and not trying to get justification from keeping the Law of

Moses, we are in a strange way fulfilling the ―righteousness of the law‖ (Rom. 8:4). It may be that

Paul here is using ―law‖ as a reference to the Old Testament scriptures generally, which he has been

quoting so freely to prove his point (he uses ―law‖ like this in Rom. 3:19,21; although ―law‖ in the

first half of 3:31 seems to refer to the Mosaic Law specifically).

"Think not that I am come to destroy (―to make void‖, Darby's Translation) the law, or the prophets:

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Mt. 5:17) has some kind of unconscious, hard to define link

with Rom. 3:31:" Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the

law". The Greek words for "destroy" and "make void" are different; yet the similarity of phrasing

and reasoning is so similar. I can't pass this off as chance, yet neither can I say there is a conscious

allusion here. There is, therefore, what I will call an 'unconscious link' here.

4:1 What shall we say - Paul‘s frequent ―What then shall we say to this?‖ occurs at least 5 times in

Romans alone (Rom. 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14,30)- and this is the classic phrase used by Jewish teachers at

the end of presenting their argument to their students. Seeing then that Paul writes in a rabbinic way,

as if He is giving a stream of Midrash on earlier, familiar writings [e.g. the words of Jesus or the

Old Testament], we should be looking for how he may quote or allude to just a word or two from

the Lord, and weave an interpretation around them.

Abraham our father- Paul was writing to Jewish and Gentile believers. Yet he speaks of ―our‖ father

as if he‘s writing mainly to Jews here- but see on Rom. 4:11. Alternatively, it could be that Paul in

wishing to be as personal as possible in addressing his readers is referring to Abraham as ―our

father‖ in the sense that he personally was Jewish. Paul in this section is now exemplifying what he

has taught so far in Romans from the example of Abraham. This whole ‗Abraham‘ section is written

in the style of Rabbinic Midrash, with Gen. 15:6 as the verse being expounded. Paul‘s point is that

Jewish and Gentile believers can trace themselves back to Abraham because the family likeness is

in faith not circumcision. Jewish proselytes were forbidden to call Abraham ―our father‖- C.K.

Barrett, From First Adam to Last (New York: Scribner‘s, 1962) p. 31.

123

As pertaining to the flesh- the same Greek phrase is used five times in Romans 8 in the negative

sense of ―according to the flesh‖. The suggestion may be that walking according to the flesh rather

than the Spirit was related to placing meaning on the fact that Abraham was a fleshly ancestor.

Being or emphasizing ones‘ Jewishness was therefore related to unspirituality, whereas the Jews

thought that being Jewish was a sign of spirituality. Paul‘s style was so radical, but then so are the

demands of the grace which has saved us.

Has found- in the context of Rom. 3:27,28, what has he found to boast / glory about? The answer is-

nothing, according to his works.

4:2 If Abraham were justified by works- as the Jews said he was. Jubilees 23:10: ―Abraham was

perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness‖. Indeed some of the

Jewish writings claimed Abraham never sinned.

Whereof to glory- alluding to Sirach 44:19, which says about Abraham in the context of his good

works: ―None has been found like him in glory‖. This allusion to and deconstruction of other

writings is something which Paul does quite often- and probably even more frequently, if we had

access to more first century texts from which to perceive his allusions. Significantly, Sirach is in the

Apocrypha, but Paul evidently disagrees with the book and shows it teaches wrongly about

Abraham. This would possibly confirm the Protestant tradition of rejecting the Apocryphal books as

inspired, although the recorded words of men in the canonical books are also of course quoted and

deconstructed. But the quotation from Sirach is from the actual words of Ben Sira, which are

claimed to be directly inspired.

But not before God- Before the judgment throne of God, of which Paul has been speaking in chapter

3, especially 3:19. He demonstrated there that all humanity, Abraham included, stand shamed and

speechless before God. The idea that Abraham was sinless is therefore disputed strongly by Paul.

The Greek phrase ―before God‖ occurs several times in Romans. Because we are justified by faith,

we have peace ―before God‖ [AV ―with God‖, Rom. 5:1]. The practical section of Romans brings

out what we ought to do, therefore, with that position- Paul prayed for Israel ―before God‖ (AV ―to

God‖, Rom. 10:1), and he urges the believers to likewise pray ―before God‖ (AV ―to God‖, Rom.

15:30). If we are justified, declared right before God by grace, then as we stand there in His

presence with His gracious acceptance, we ought to from that place beg His mercy for others. This

is the practical outcome of the courtroom parable. We stand there accepted, with the judge lovingly

smiling at us in gracious acceptance, with nothing now laid to our charge, declared right with God;

and what should we then do? We who have peace before God should whilst before God, beg Him

for mercy upon others. Job is really a working model for us in all this. He said the wrong things

about God, as Elihu points out on God‘s behalf; and yet before God‘s awesome throne he was

declared right, as if he had spoken what was right; and then he prays for his friends.

4:3 What says..?- the Bible as a living word continues to speak with us, in part of an ongoing

dialogue between God and man.

Counted- the Greek word occurs very often in this section. Significantly, Rom. 3:28 says that we are

to conclude [s.w. ―count‖] that we are justified by faith rather than works. We are to view ourselves,

impute to ourselves, as God does. His view of us is to be our view of ourselves. The Septuagint uses

this word with regard to sacrifices [symbolic of Christ‘s death on the cross] being ―reckoned‖ to a

person (Lev. 7:18; Num. 18:27,30); and of Shimei asking David not to ―reckon‖ his guilt to him, to

judge him not according to the obvious facts of the case (2 Sam. 19:20). The Old Testament is at

pains to stress that Yahweh will not justify the guilty (Ex. 23:7; Is. 5:23; Prov. 17:15). This is where

the unique significance of Jesus comes in. Because of Him, His death and our faith in it, our being

in Him, God can justify the wicked in that they have died with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5), they

are no longer, they are only ―in Christ‖, for them ―to live is Christ‖. They are counted as in Him,

and in this way sinners end up justified.

124

4:3-5 Abraham's weakness at the time of the Genesis 15 promises is perhaps behind how Paul

interprets the star-gazing incident in Rom. 4:3-5. He is answering the Jewish idea that Abraham

never sinned (see on Rom. 4:2). He quotes the incident, and God's counting of righteousness to

Abraham, as proof that a man with no "works", nothing to glory before God with, can believe in

God to "justify the ungodly", and thereby be counted righteous. Understanding Abraham's mood as

revealed in Gen. 15:1-4 certainly helps us see the relevance of all this to Abraham. And it helps us

see Abraham more realistically as the father of us all... and not some Sunday School hero, well

beyond our realistic emulation. No longer need we think "Abraham? Oh, yeah, Abraham... faith...

wow. But me... nah. I'm not Abraham...". He's for real, truly our example, a realistic hero whom we

can cheer and pledge to follow. For Abraham is an example to us of God's grace to man, and a man

in all his weakness and struggle with God accepting it and believing it, even when he is "ungodly",

rather than a picture of a white-faced placid saint with unswerving faith:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? For if

Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. For what saith the

scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now to him

that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but

believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness" (Rom. 4:1-5).

It is in the very struggle for faith that we have that we show ourselves to have the family

characteristic of Abraham. That moment when the "ungodly", doubting, bitter Abraham believed

God's promise is to be as it were our icon, the picture we rise up to: " Even as Abraham believed

God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the

same are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:6,7).

The struggle within Abraham at the time is brought out by Paul in Rom. 4:18-24, which seems to be

a kind of psychological commentary upon the state of Abraham's mind as he stood there looking at

the stars in the presence of God / an Angel ("before him [God] whom he believed", Rom. 4:17):

"Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations,

according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith

he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the

deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief,

but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had

promised, he was able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto

whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead".

4:3,5 It may be that Abraham realised his own spiritual weakness at this time, if we follow Paul's

argument in Rom. 4:3,5: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory... (but)

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness... to him (alluding to Abraham)

that worketh not, but believeth (as did Abraham) on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (like

Abraham's) is counted for righteousness". Surely this suggests that Abraham felt ungodly at the

time, unworthy of this great promise, recognizing he only had moments of faith, and yet he believed

that although he was ungodly, God would justify him and give him the promise, and therefore he

was counted as righteous and worthy of the promise. There is certainly the implication of some kind

of forgiveness being granted Abraham at the time of his belief in Gen. 15:6; righteousness was

imputed to him, which is tantamount to saying that his ungodliness was covered. In this context,

Paul goes straight on to say that the same principles operated in the forgiveness of David for his sin

with Bathsheba. It would actually appear that Paul is writing here, as he often does, with his eye on

deconstructing popular Jewish views at the time. Their view of Abraham was that he was perfect,

"Godly" in the extreme- and Paul's point is that actually he was not, he was "ungodly", but counted

righteous not by his acts but by his faith. See on Phil. 3:6.

125

4:4 He that works- the same word for ―works‖ is used in Mt. 25:16, where we are to trade or ‗work‘

with our talents and will be judged for the quality of that working. The point surely is that we will

be saved by grace, not works; and yet our works in response to that grace will be judged, and will

determine the nature of the eternity, the salvation, which we enjoy- reigning over 10 or five or two

cities etc.By a sublime paradox, the ―work‖ we are to do is to believe in Jesus (Jn. 6:28-30). So here

in Rom. 4:4 we have to again read in an ellipsis: ―He that [trusts in] works [for his justification]‖.

Of debt- The only other time the word occurs in the New Testament is in the request for our debts

[i.e. sins] to be forgiven (Mt. 6:12). We are in debt to God, to suggest He is in debt to us is bizarre-

as bizarre as thinking that we can be justified by our works rather than His grace.

4:5 But believes- the content of Abraham‘s faith was in the promise just given him that he would

have a great descendant, the Lord Jesus, who would become many. The content of our faith in

Christ which results in justification is the same. Note that Abraham wasn‘t presented with a

complex theology of Christ which he had to say ―yes‖ to. He was presented with very simple facts

concerning Jesus- that He would be the future descendant of Abraham, and through connection with

Him, blessing would be received and eternal inheritance of the earth. This is the same basic content

of the faith in Christ which we are asked to have.

The ungodly- Abraham, whom the Jews argued was sinless and Godly because of his works (see on

4:2). The word is used about gross sinners (e.g. Rom. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 4:18). Again, Paul is

using extreme language to demonstrate how serious is sin; a man like Abraham whom we would

consider a Godly man was in fact ungodly- because he was a sinner.

Counted for righteousness- Paul comments that he persecuted the Christian church "zealously"

(Phil. 3:6). He was alluding to the way that Phinehas is described as 'zealous' for the way in which

he murdered an apostate Jew together with a Gentile who was leading him to sin (Num. 25). Note

that the Jews in Palestine had no power to give anyone the death sentence, as witnessed not only by

the record of the trial of Jesus but Josephus too (Antiquities 20.202; BJ 2.117; 6.302). Paul was a

criminal murderer; and he had justified it by saying that he was the 1st Century Phinehas. Ps. 106:30

had commented upon the murder performed by Phinehas, that his zeal "was accounted to him for

righteousness". This sets the background for the converted Paul's huge emphasis upon the fact that

faith in Jesus is what is "reckoned for righteousness", and it is in this way that God "justifies the

unGodly" (Rom. 4:3-5; 5:6; Gal. 3:6). Paul is inviting us to see ourselves as him- passionately

obsessed with going about our justification the wrong way, and having to come to the huge

realization that righteousness is imputed to us by our faith in the work of Jesus.

4:6 Blessedness of the man- the Greek idea is of ‗beatification‘, making a man into a saint. This

exalted language, the kind of thing the Rabbis did only for stellar examples of spirituality like

Abraham and David, is actually the process which happens to every man who believes in Christ.

I‘ve often asked myself how exactly the Mosaic Law led people to Christ. Was it not that they were

convicted by it of guilt, and cried out for a Saviour? ―The law entered, that the offence might

abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that… grace might reign… unto

eternal life by Jesus‖ (Rom. 5:20,21). This was the purpose of the Law. And thus Paul quotes

David‘s rejoicing in the righteousness imputed to him when he had sinned and had no works left to

do- and changes the pronoun from ―he‖ to ―they‖ (Rom. 4:6-8). David‘s personal experience

became typical of that of each of us. It was through the experience of that wretched and hopeless

position that David and all believers come to know the true ‗blessedness‘ of imputed righteousness

and sin forgiven by grace. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (Ps. 32:1), David wrote,

after experiencing God's mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David

describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

(Rom. 4:6). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David's

126

position. The Spirit changes Ps. 32:1 ("Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven") to "Blessed

are they" (Rom. 4:7) to make the same point.

Without works- in that there was no defined sacrifice for David to offer to atone for the murder of

Uriah and adultery. We stand speechless and defenceless before the judgment seat of God in the

same way. Again we see Paul urging us to accept the depth of our sinfulness- the position of a man

guilty of adultery and murder is that of each of us.

4:7 Blessed- this is perhaps the thread of connection between the examples of Abraham and David.

Abraham believed God‘s promise of blessing (which the New Testament interprets as forgiveness

and salvation, e.g. Acts 3:25,26); he received the blessing for no works he had done, but simply

because he believed. David likewise received a similar blessing- just because he believed.

4:8 blessed is the man- connects with ―blessed are they‖ (4:7). David becomes representative of us

all.

Will not- a double negative in the Greek, He absolutely will not count us as sinners!

4:9 This blessedness- is paralleled with ―righteousness‖ in the second half of the verse. Paul‘s

reasoning is that Abraham was uncircumcised when he received this blessing of righteousness,

therefore circumcision is irrelevant. But the implication is that Abraham received the blessing, the

righteous standing, immediately upon his belief, right there and then. Because the crux of the

argument is that he received these things whilst uncircumcised. We therefore should be able to

rejoice here and now that we right now are counted righteous before God‘s judgment throne.

4:10 How…? – not ‗When?‘. How, in what manner was righteousness reckoned- obviously not

thanks to circumcision.

4:11 Circumcision was a sign given as a testament or seal to the faith Abraham had before he was

circumcised, the faith which justified and saved him. Circumcision itself, therefore, was nothing to

do with his justification. Paul appears to be laboring his points somewhat, but he was up against a

colossally strong Jewish mindset that considered circumcision itself to be what saves and defines a

person as God‘s. The ―seal‖ which we now have is in our foreheads, Rev. 9:4, a mental attitude, a

seal stamped within our hearts by God‘s Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30); as such it is invisible,

an internal condition rather than an external mark in the flesh. But what exactly is it? Surely if we

believe the good news which Paul has been explaining, that we stand ashamed and condemned

before God‘s judgment seat but are then declared righteous, justified and saved, standing there in

the very presence of God clean and justified- this will make an indelible psychological mark upon

the person who believes this. ‗Once saved always saved‘ is too primitive a teaching- we can fall

from grace. But all the same, if we have really and truly experienced this great salvation, we have

the mark of it, the seal of it in our hearts, and it will become evident in our thinking and speaking

and behavior in this world. Whatever we do subsequently with this grace, our experience of

standing justified before God will leave as I put it, an indelible psychological mark upon us. This is

what I suggest is the sealing of which the New Testament speaks. And it has to be inevitably

observed that many who bear the name of Christ would appear by the way they reason and act to

simply not have that indelible psychological mark upon them. Which is the value of Romans,

working through the mechanics of salvation in this dense, intense manner, to bring us to the point

where we too are convicted, converted and can stand rejoicing ―before God‖, declared right.

Another angle on this is that the circumcision which we receive is to be connected with baptism

(Col. 2:11-15). The cutting off of the flesh is therefore achieved by Christ operating directly on our

hearts, rather than by the midwife‘s knife. In this case, baptism likewise would be a ―seal‖ upon our

faith in God‘s righteousness being counted to us in Christ; and it is this faith which is the essence of

our salvation. However, Romans 6 seems to place baptism as more than a mere piece of physical

symbolism of the same value as circumcision; it is the means by which a believer believes into

Christ and thus becomes ―in Christ‖, thereby having His righteousness counted to them. 1 Clement,

127

the Shepherd of Hermes and other early Christian writings likewise speak of baptism as the ―seal‖

upon Christian faith.

That righteousness might be imputed to them- because Abraham is their spiritual father. Here we see

the power of example. Abraham inspires our faith, and so the amazing grace of righteousness being

counted to us happens, in one sense, because of him- because he opened the paradigm, of being

declared right before God just because he believed. The crucial family likeness in the Abraham

family is therefore faith, not marks in the flesh placed on the male members of the tribe. This of

course was blasphemy for the Jews to hear… In this sense therefore, Abraham was father of ―all‖

the believers in Rome, both Jew and Gentile. Connection to him should therefore create unity

between ethnic groups rather than exclusivity.

Walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham- see on 4:1. Walking in the steps of Abraham

suggests that his journey of faith from Ur to Haran to Canaan becomes typical of the walk of every

single believer towards salvation in the Kingdom, a journey only motivated by our faith that we will

be there, that we are declared right before God in Christ. Abraham walked by faith- but the content

of that faith, Paul is arguing, was faith in justification by God. Likewise we will not get very far in

our walk to the Kingdom if we fail to believe that we are already right now justified and right with

God; we aren‘t walking to judgment day in the vague hope that we will inherit the Kingdom,

walking to the Kingdom to see if we shall enter into it. We walk [Gk. ‗march‘] in faith, faith that we

are already declared right before God, that ours is the Kingdom, and we are walking there to obtain

it, just as Abraham took his steps toward Canaan not to just have a look at it and see if he would

obtain it, but rather believing that it already was his. The Greek word ―steps‖ is in fact a form of the

word ‗arrival‘; we are walking to the Kingdom and yet we have in a sense arrived there.

Lk. 19:9 = Rom. 4:11,12. If you have real faith, you'll be like Zacchaeus. You'll have his

determination, his unashamedness to come out in the open for Christ your Lord.

4:13 Promise- the Greek really means an announcement. It‘s not a vague possibility, the ‗promises‘

to Abraham were an announcement that he would inherit the Kingdom. The promise Paul refers to

was given to Abraham because of, dia, on account of, his being declared right with God by faith in

Gen. 15:6. Perhaps Paul specifically has in mind the promise of Gen. 22:17,18. Having been

declared right with God, Abraham was then promised that he personally would be heir of the world-

the implications of being right with God, counted righteous, were thereby fleshed out and given

some more tangible, material, concrete form. He would therefore live for ever, because he was right

with God; and the arena of that eternity would be ―the world‖.

Heir of the world- Abraham was only explicitly promised the land of Canaan, not the entire planet.

Perhaps Paul is interpreting the promises that his seed would comprise ―many nations‖ and that he

would bring blessing on ―all the peoples of the earth‖ (Gen. 12:2,3 etc.). In this sense, they would

become his, and he would thereby inherit them. Thus Is. 55:3-5 likewise implies that Abraham‘s

promised inheritance was therefore not only the land of Canaan but by implication, the whole

planet.

God promised Abraham a very specific inheritance in Canaan. And yet this promise seems to be

interpreted in later Scripture as referring to the world-wide Kingdom which will be established at

the second coming (e.g. Rom. 4:13 speaks of how Abraham was promised that he would inherit the

world; Ps. 72 and other familiar prophecies speak of a world-wide Messianic Kingdom, based on

the promises to Abraham). One possible explanation is found in Psalm 2, where the Father seems to

encourage the Son to ask of Him "the heathen [i.e., not just the Jews] for thine inheritance, and the

uttermost parts of the earth [not just the land of promise] for thy possession" (Ps. 2:8). Could it be

that due to the Lord's spiritual ambition, the inheritance was extended from the Jewish people to all

nations, and from literal Canaan to all the earth? This is not to say, of course, that fundamentally the

promises to Abraham have been changed. No. The promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan still

128

stands as the basis of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Gal. 3:8), but that promise has been considerably

extended, thanks to the Lord's spiritual ambition.

Abraham believed God in Gen. 15, but the works of Gen. 22 [offering Isaac] made that faith

―perfect‖. Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed ―the

righteousness of faith‖. But on account of that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given

―the promises that he should be heir of the world‖ (Rom. 4:13). That promise in turn inspired yet

more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the

promises leads men ―from faith to faith‖, up the upward spiral (Rom. 1:17).

Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed ―the

righteousness of faith‖. But on account of that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given

―the promise that he should be heir of the world‖ (Rom. 4:13). That promise in turn inspired yet

more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the

promises leads men ―from faith to faith‖, up the upward spiral (Rom. 1:17).

4:14 The huge importance attached to faith in Gen. 15:6 would be pointless if obedience to the Law

was what guaranteed the promise of inheritance the world- as Jewish theology taught about

Abraham. The promise of the Kingdom would become irrelevant because Paul has demonstrated in

Romans 1-3 that all men, Abraham included, are sinners, law breakers, and condemned before the

judgment seat of God. Nobody would therefore inherit the promised Kingdom, and so the promise

of it would have been pointless- see on 4:15.

4:15 wrath- the wrath of Divine condemnation. Because nobody keeps God‘s law fully, therefore

the law brings those under it to condemnation. Another way has to be found if we wish to be

declared right and not condemned. To say that the law creates [AV ―works‖] Divine wrath upon

men is another example of Paul using purposefully radical and controversial language to

demonstrate the seriousness of sin and the utter folly of hiding behind legal righteousness. Law

creates the possibility of ―transgression‖, a conscious crossing over the line. Sin is one thing; but

transgression is what brings liability to receiving the wrath of God, because if we know His law and

cross over it, then we are the more culpable. This difference between sin and transgression is at the

root of a great Biblical theme- that knowledge brings responsibility. And this was particularly

relevant and concerning, or it ought to have been, to a Jewish audience so keen to attain rightness

with God through obedience to law.

4:16 To the end the promise might be sure- God‘s promises are sure from His end, in that He will

not break them. But the promised inheritance of the Kingdom would never be a very sure promise if

it depended upon human acts of obedience to come true. But because salvation is by our faith in

God‘s grace, declaring us right quite apart from our works- therefore we are sure of entering that

Kingdom, and in this sense it is grace which makes the promise sure. The certainty of our future

hope and present salvation is therefore precisely in the fact that it doesn‘t depend upon our works.

All the time we think it does, the promise of salvation will not appear to us to be at all ―sure‖.

To all the seed- the fact salvation is by pure grace to sinners means that any person of whatever

ethnic background may believe in it and accept it. The result of that is that there should be no

spiritual difference between ethnic groups such as Jew and Gentile in Rome. And today, our

common experience of utter grace, each of us accessing it by faith, should be the basis for a

powerful unity.

Faith of Abraham- There is an intended ambiguity in the phrase ―the faith of Abraham" (Rom.

4:16); this 'ambiguous genitive' can mean those who share "the (doctrinal) faith" , which Abraham

also believed; or those who have the kind of belief which Abraham had. Like Abraham, we are

justified by the faith in Christ; not faith in Christ, but more specifically the faith in Christ (Gal.

2:16). The use of the definite article surely suggests that it is our possession of the same doctrinal

truths (the Faith) which Abraham had, which is what leads to faith in Christ and thereby our

129

justification. The life Paul lived was by the Faith of Christ; not simply by faith, as a verb, which is

how grammatically it should be expressed if this is what was meant; but by the Faith (Gal. 2:20).

Father of us all- see on Rom. 4:1.

4:17 before him [God] whom he believed- continues the language of our standing ―before God‖ in

3:19,20 and being condemned there for our sins, and yet also being declared righteous there by His

grace and our faith in that grace. The first part of v. 17 is in brackets, correctly in my opinion.

Abraham was declared the ―father of us all‖ (4:16) before God, as he stood as it were in God‘s

judgment presence and was justified, declared right- God then considered him as the father of us all,

naming things [AV ―calling‖] which didn‘t exist as if they did. Abraham the ungodly was counted

as Godly; we who were sinners, disobedient to the law, were counted as obedient; and thus God as it

were saw Abraham before His presence not merely as Abraham, but as representative of so many

others who would likewise believe in God‘s grace and be thereby justified.

Calls those things which be not as though they were- is exactly what Paul has been arguing all

through his letter so far. God calls the unrighteous righteous, counting righteousness to those who

believe, who are themselves not righteous. ―Calls‖ strictly means ‗to name‘, and the reference

would initially be to the way God called Abram as Abraham, as if he already was the father of the

people of many nations whom God foresaw would believe in His promised grace just as Abraham

had done. God saw us then as if we existed, in the same way as He sees us as righteous even though

we are not. The idea of calling things which don‘t exist into existence also has suggestions of

creation (Is. 41:4; 48:13). The new, spiritual creation is indeed a creation ex nihilo, an act of grace.

Incomprehensible to the modern mind, the natural creation involved the creation of matter from out

of God, and not out of any visible, concrete matter which already existed. The physical creation

therefore looked forward to the grace of the new creation- creating people spiritually out of nothing,

counting righteousness to them which they didn‘t have, treating them as persons whom they were

not.

Because God is not limited by time, He speaks of things which do not now exist as if they do,

because He knows that ultimately they will exist (Rom. 4:17). This explains why the Bible speaks

as if Abraham is still alive although he is now dead; as if the believers are now saved in God‘s

kingdom, although ―he that endureth to the end shall be saved‖ (Mt. 10:22); as if Israel were

obedient to God‘s word (Ps. 132:4 cp. Ex. 19:5-6), when they will only be so in the future; as if

Christ existed before His birth, although he evidently only existed physically after his birth of Mary.

Our comprising the Kingdom to some degree is understandable seeing that God speaks of "those

things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Thus Abraham and those believers who have

died are described as 'living unto God' in prospect, because He can foresee their resurrection (Lk.

20:38). It is to this that Rom. 6:11 refers: "Reckon yourselves (i.e. in prospect)... alive unto God

through (having been resurrected with) Jesus" in baptism. In the same way as in prospect we should

reckon ourselves resurrected to eternal life, unable to give service to sin any longer, so in the same

way we are now in the Kingdom. Careful attention to the tenses in 1 Cor. 15:20 indicates the same

logic; by His resurrection Christ has "become the firstfruits of them that slept"- not those 'who are

sleeping', but "that slept", seeing that because of their Lord's resurrection they also are alive in

prospect. Similarly if Christ had not risen "they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished"

(1 Cor.15:18), implying that now they are not perished. The practical meaning of all this is that we

should live now in the same joy and righteousness as if we were in the Kingdom. "The day (of the

Kingdom) is at hand: let us therefore... walk honestly, as in the day" (Rom.13:12,13), i.e. as if we

are now living in the Kingdom which is soon to come.

4:18 Who against hope believed in hope – see on Rom. 4:19. The first ―hope‖ may be human hope-

and Abraham as a sinner was in a hopeless situation. Yet he believed and thereby shared in God‘s

hopefulness for us, seeing himself as God saw him- as declared right. ―Against‖ could equally be

130

translated ―beyond‖. Beyond human hope, Abraham had hope. This is the essence of the Gospel-

having no hope in our own strength, standing condemned and speechless before God, but believing

in His hopefulness for us. His faith in this instance was that he would indeed become a father of

many nations. He didn‘t just believe that he was declared right with God, but that really and truly

there would be people world-wide who would likewise believe and become his seed. In this sense

he believed in God‘s hope. We likewise need to share in the hopefulness of God for people rather

than being negative, cynical and defeatist about people just because so many chose not to respond.

Father of many nations- Because of Sarah‘s faith, ―therefore sprang there... so many as the stars of

the sky in multitude‖ (Heb. 11:11,12). Those promises to Abraham had their fulfilment, but

conditional on Abraham and Sarah‘s faith. Gen. 18:18-20 says that the fulfilment of the promises

was conditional on Abraham teaching his children / seed the ways of God. Those promises /

prophesies were ―sure‖ in the sense that God‘s side of it was. Rom. 4:18 likewise comments that

Abraham became ―the father of many nations‖ precisely because he believed in this hope. Yet the

promise / prophecy that he would be a father of many nations could sound as if it would have

happened anyway, whatever. But it was actually conditional upon Abraham‘s faith. And he is our

great example exactly because he had the possibility and option of not believing in the hope he had

been offered.

4:19 Not weak in faith- s.w. ―impotent‖, Jn. 5:7; the word is usually used with the sense of sickness

or weak health. Abraham was physically impotent, perhaps even seriously ill and weak at the time

the promise was given- but not impotent or weak in faith. The idea of the Greek is that Abraham

didn‘t weaken in faith as he observed / considered his body. We showed in our introductory

comments that the theological first half of Romans has many connections with the practical second

half. Thus we meet this very same phrase ―weak in faith‖ in Rom. 14:1,2- where we are told to

accept those who are ―weak in faith‖. This connection would seem to be a tacit admission that not

all in the ecclesia are going to rise up to the faith of Abraham, even though he is to be the father of

us all, in that we share that same family characteristic of faith. Thus on one hand Paul sets Abraham

before us as a vital, crucial pattern- not an option, a nice idea, but a role model whose faith must be

followed, in whose faithful steps we are to walk. And yet he accepts that not all in Christ will rise

up to his level of faith- and we are to accept them. The same word for ―weak‖ is used in Rom. 5:6-

whilst we were weak [AV ―without strength‖], Christ died for us. We therefore are to accept the

weak, even as Christ died for us in our weakness. We share something of His cross in accepting

those who are spiritually weaker than ourselves.Yet so many refuse to carry His cross in this matter,

because their own pride stops them accepting those weaker in the faith than themselves.

Considered not- He didn't fix his mind upon (Gk.) the fact his body was dead (i.e. impotent) and

unable to produce seed (Rom. 4:19). He wasn't obsessed with his state, yet he lived a life of faith

that ultimately God's Kingdom would come, he rejoiced at the contemplation of Christ his Lord; and

he filled his life with practical service. He wasn't obsessed with the fact that in his marital position

he personally couldn't have children when it seemed this was what God wanted him to do; and this

was very pleasing to God.

Neither yet the deadness of Sarah‟s womb- so often we allow the apparent weakness of others to

become a barrier to our faith. ‗She‘ll never change… she just isn‘t capable of that‘. But Abraham

not only believed that he could do it, but that the apparent obstacle of another‘s weakness was also

surmountable by the word of promise.

An hundred years old- Gen. 17:1 says he was 99, so he was in his 100th year.

4:19,20 There are some implied gaps within the record in Gen. 15:5,6: God brings Abraham outside,

and asks him to number the stars [gap]; then He tells Abraham "So shall thy seed be" [gap]; and

then, maybe 10 seconds or 10 hours afterwards, "Abraham believed in the Lord; and he counted it to

him for righteousness". Those 10 seconds or 10 hours or whatever the period was, are summarized

131

by Paul as how Abraham "in hope believed against hope" (4:18). His no-hope struggled against his

hope / faith, but in the end his faith in God's word of promise won out. "According to that which had

been spoken, So shall thy seed be" implies to me that he kept reflecting on those words: "So shall

thy seed be" (three words in Hebrew, ko zehrah hawya). And we too can too easily say that we

believe the Bible is God's word, without realizing that to just believe three inspired words can be

enough to radically change our lives and lead us to eternity. I'm not sure that Abraham's ultimate

belief of those three words ko zehrah hawya just took a few seconds. According to Paul, he

"considered... his body"- he reflected on the fact he was impotent (see Gk. and RV). Katanoeo,

"consider", means to "observe fully" (Rom. 4:19). He took full account of his impotent state,

knowing it as only a man can know it about himself. And he likewise considered fully the deadness

of his elderly wife's womb, recalling how her menstruation had stopped years ago... but all that

deeply personal self-knowledge didn't weaken his faith; he didn't "waver", but in fact- the very

opposite occurred. He "waxed strong through faith... being fully assured that what [God] had

promised, He was able also to perform". As he considered his own physical weakness, and that of

his wife, his faith "waxed" stronger (RV), he went through a process of becoming "fully assured",

his faith was progressively built up ("waxed strong" is in the passive voice)... leading up to the

moment of total faith that so thrilled the heart of God. And so it can happen with us- the very

obstacles to faith, impotence in Abraham's case, are what actually leads to faith getting into that

upward spiral that leads towards total certainty. Abraham's physical impotence did not make him

"weak" [s.w. translated "impotent" in Jn. 5:3,7] in faith- it all worked out the opposite. For his

physical impotence made him not-impotent in faith; the very height of the challenge led him to

conclude that God would be true to His word, and he would indeed have a child. For when we are

"weak" [s.w. "impotent"], then we are strong (2 Cor. 12:10). Thus the internal struggle of Abraham's

mind led his faith to develop in those seconds or minutes or hours as he reflected upon the words

"So shall your seed be". He "staggered not at the promise" (Rom. 4:20), he didn't separate himself

away from (Gk.) those three Hebrew words translated "So shall your seed be", he didn't let his mind

balk at them... and therefore and thereby he was made strong in faith ("waxed strong in faith" Rom.

4:20 RV). This process of his faith strengthening is picked up in the next verse: Abraham was "fully

persuaded that what [God] had promised, he was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21). There was a

process of internal persuasion going on- leading to the moment of faith, which so thrilled God and

was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. And of course Paul drives the point home- that we are

to have the faith of Abraham. As he believed that life could come out of his dead body ("dead" in

Rom. 4:19, with a passive participle, implies 'slain'), so we are to believe in the resurrection of the

slain body of the Lord Jesus, and the real power of His new life to transform our dead lives (Rom.

4:23,24). Gal. 3:5,14 puts it another way in saying that if we share the faith of Abraham at that time,

we will receive "the promise of the spirit through faith", the enlivening of our sterile lives. And this

takes quite some faith for us to take seriously on board; for as Abraham carefully considered the

impotence of his physical body, so we can get a grim picture of the deadness of our fleshly lives.

These ideas help us understand more clearly why the Lord chose to be baptized. He understood

baptism as a symbol of his death (Lk. 12:50). Rom. 6:3-5 likewise makes the connection between

baptism and crucifixion. The Lord knew that He would be crucified, and yet He lived out the

essence of it in His own baptism.

4:20 Staggered not- Gk. diakrino, to judge. Abraham didn't judge God by doubting, analyzing,

forensically investigating, the promise made- finding all the possible reasons why it might not be

true for him. This continues the idea of Rom. 3:4- that man effectively puts God in the dock and

prosecutes Him for false witness and unreal promises, the accusers being the doubts of God‘s grace

deep within the human mind. Abraham didn't do this. The word occurs only one other time in

Romans, in the practical section, in Rom. 14:23: "He that doubts [s.w. 'stagger'] is damned if he

eat". If we are truly Abraham's children and don't doubt God's promises, we will have a strong

132

conscience, not worrying that eating this or that or failing to keep some ritual will result in our

losing God's grace.

Was strong- Gk. ‗was / became strengthened‘- by whom? By God? In this case we would see God‘s

grace yet more apparent, in that Abraham was justified by his faith in God‘s grace, but God Himself

partially empowere that faith. This would be an example of how faith is part of an upward spiritual

spiral, the dynamic in which is God Himself- a theme with which Romans begins, when Paul talks

about going ―from faith to faith‖ (Rom. 1:17). Exactly the same term is used about Paul after his

conversion- he "increased the more in strength" and confounded Jewish opposition to the Gospel

(Acts 9:22). As so often, Paul provides himself as a parade example of what he's preaching.

Significantly, Paul elsewhere comments that it is Christ who strengthens him within his mind (Phil.

4:13 and context; other examples of the same word applied to Christ‘s strengthening of Paul are in 1

Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:17; and Heb. 11:37 says that the faithful of old were ―made strong‖ in their

faith, by God). We are thrown up yet again against God‘s grace. We can be saved by grace if we

believe in that grace, but the Lord is willing to even strengthen us in that necessary faith. See on

4:21 ―fully persuaded‖, where again God is the persuader of human faith. Abraham therefore gave

the glory to God, because it was God who had strengthened his faith and the whole thing comes

down to God‘s grace in every way, for which we can only glorify Him. Paul uses the same phrase

for ‗giving glory to God‘ as in Lk. 17:18, where it is a Gentile rather than the Jews who give glory

to God for what He has done for them- and surely this is another of Paul‘s many allusions to the

Gospel records.

Mt. 21:21 = Rom. 4:20. Paul saw Abraham as being like the man in the parable who had the faith to

throw mountains into the sea.

4:21 fully persuaded- by whom? Surely by God. This continues the theme of ‗was strengthened‘ in

4:20 [see note there], that although God‘s saving grace is accessible to us by faith, He also plays a

part in developing that faith. This of course lays the basis for Paul‘s later comment in Romans upon

predestination as being an indicator of God‘s pure grace. For He doesn‘t just start talking about

predestination without a context- he cites it as an example, or another window onto, God‘s grace.

We have earlier commented that the doctrinal section of Romans [chapters 1-8] has many

connections with the latter, practical part of Romans; and we‘ve demonstrated that several verses in

Romans 4 contain phrases which recur in Romans 14. ―Fully persuaded‖ occurs elsewhere in

Romans only in Rom. 14:5, where Paul urges that each of us, like Abraham, should be ―fully

persuaded in [our] own mind‖ about the matter of Sabbath keeping. The implication isn‘t so much

that each of us should just be certain that we are fully persuaded of our position- that would be to

state an axiom needlessly- but surely the point of the allusion to Abraham‘s full persuasion in Rom.

4:21 is that if we have been fully persuaded of God‘s salvation being by pure grace and not works,

then we will not be concerned about keeping days or indeed any other ritual in order to gain His

acceptance. That same principle can be applied in our church lives, in forming our approach to

matters of external ritual [e.g. head coverings for sisters, or dress codes at church meetings] which

in our generation may be a live issue, as Sabbath keeping was for the Rome ecclesia of the first

century.

Able to perform- it may seem obvious that anyone who believes in the God of the Bible will believe

that God Almighty is truly almighty, and is capable of doing what He has promised. And yet when

it comes to believing that He is able to save me despite my sins and regardless of my works- we all

baulk. Abraham believed, that God was able to do what He had said. To save him, without works.

The only other time the Greek phrase translated ―able to perform‖ occurs is in Lk. 1:49, where

young Mary exalts that the God who is able has performed great things for her. Perhaps Paul is

setting her up as our example. That barefoot and pregnant, illiterate young woman (a teenager,

probably), who took God at His word. Paul maybe has the same sense in mind when he comments

that the God who cannot lie has promised us eternal life (Tit. 1:2). John in characteristic bluntness

133

puts it so clearly: ―This is the promise that He has promised us: eternal life‖ (1 Jn. 2:25). To doubt

that we shall receive it is effectively calling Him a liar. We are between a rock and a hard place. We

must either face up to the wonder of our salvation, or do the unthinkable- call God a liar, one

incapable of doing what He has said. Sarah likewise ―judged Him faithful who had promised‖ (Heb.

11:11). There again we meet the idea of putting God in the dock. We judge Him- as either faithful,

or unfaithful; able or unable; almighty or impotent, a god of nice ideas and fair words which have

no cash value in the weakness and desperation of our human, earthly lives. The Greek translated

―promise‖ can be used in the context of a legal assertion about oneself (although it isn‘t used within

the NT in this way). God is in the dock, making the promise, the assertion about Himself, His very

own self, that He will give us eternal life. And we judge Him- as speaking the Truth, the most

ultimate truth of the cosmos, of history- or as lying under oath to us. Faced with a choice like that,

we have no real choice but with Abraham and Sarah ―judge Him faithful who has promised‖ (Heb.

11:11).

4:22 Imputed- this word occurs so many times in Romans 4. Abraham‘s faith that God would give

him the promised blessing and salvation was counted to him as righteousness, with no reference to

Abraham‘s works or sins. The word recurs in the practical section of Romans just once- in Rom.

14:14: ―To him that counts anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean‖- although there is nothing

―unclean in itself‖. God counts us as clean, not unclean. The person who is always paranoid about

this that or the other being unclean, the need to separate from this brother or that sister for their

uncleanness, hasn‘t been filled with the positive spirit of our Father, who rejoices to count unclean

persons as clean. This isn‘t in any way to blur the boundary between clean and unclean, sin and

righteousness. Rather is it the logical connection between Rom. 4:21, speaking of God calling

sinners as righteous; and Rom. 14:14, which warns that men have a tendency to count / impute

things as unclean rather than clean. Cleanness or uncleanness is a matter of perception, seems to be

Paul‘s message. For ―there is nothing unclean in itself‖. Likewise sin and righteousness are matters

of God‘s perception; for sometimes a man can do something which is counted a sin, other times the

same act can be counted as righteousness. Yet God is eager to count us as clean; and we should

have that same positive, seeking, saving spirit.

4:23Not written for his sake alone- Where was it written? In some unrecorded Scripture? In God‘s

heavenly record book? Or is the allusion to the finality of the legal case now concluded, that ‗it was

written‘ in the sense of legally concluded, under the hammer, so to speak? The suggestion is that

right now in this life, if we really believe God‘s offered salvation, or perhaps, for so long as we

believe it- we are written down as declared right before His judgment. In this case, Paul is

interpreting the comment in Gen. 15:6 ―And it was imputed unto him for righteousness‖ as a writing

in Heaven, the court secretary writing down the outcome of the case. The Jews taught that

justification would only be at the future day of judgment (see D. Moo Romans 1-8, Wycliffe

Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1991) p. 293). Paul is teaching that in fact we can be

justified, declared right with God, here and now; and we ought to be able to know and feel that.

That it was imputed- this appears to be a pointless repetition of the same phrase in the preceding

4:22. Paul keeps on and on repeating it to try to impress upon us the sheer wonder of it all- that we

are counted righteous when we are not.

4:24 But for us also- in that Abraham was being consciously set up as our example; and the record

of Abraham‘s justification by faith is purposefully designed, Paul seems to be inferring, to inspire us

to a similar faith.

Believe on Him that raised up Jesus- our faith is that God will justify us by His grace. But as Paul

will now go on to show (see on 5:1), that position of being declared right with God will be

articulated in our being given eternal life. This means in practice that we will be resurrected as Jesus

was, and given eternal life. So our belief in God is a belief in the God of resurrection, who

134

resurrected Jesus our representative, in whom, through faith and baptism into His death and

resurrection, we shall also be resurrected to eternal life.

4:25 Handed over because of our trespasses is an allusion to the LXX of Is. 53:12: ―He was handed

over because of their sins‖. The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion give special emphasis to the

moment of the Lord being handed over to those who would crucify Him. Paul is going on to show

the mechanics, as it were, of how God has chosen to operate. His scheme of justifying us isn‘t

merely a case of Him saying ‗So you are declared right by Me‘. He can do as He wishes, but He

prefers to work through some kind of mechanism. We are declared right by God although we are

sinners; which raises the obvious question: So what becomes of our sins? And so Paul explains that

by talking about the crucial role of the death of Christ. Because He was of our nature, He is our

representative. Although He never sinned, He died, yet He rose again to eternal life. Through

connection with Him, we therefore can be counted as in Him, and thereby be given that eternal life

through resurrection, regardless of our sins. In this sense, Jesus had to die and resurrect because of

our sins.

Raised for our justification is also an allusion to the LXX of Isaiah 53, this time to Is. 53:11, which

speaks of ―the righteous servant‖ (Jesus) ―justifying the righteous‖. The repetition of the word

―righteous‖ suggests that on account of the Lord‘s death, and resurrection, His righteousness

becomes ours, through this process of justification. But how and why, exactly, does Christ‘s death

and resurrection enable our justification? Paul has explained that faith in God brings justification

before Him. Now Paul is explaining how and why this process operates. Jesus died and rose again to

eternal life as our representative. If we believe into Him (which chapter 6 will define as involving

our identification with His death and resurrection by baptism), then we too will live for ever as He

does, as we will participate in His resurrection to eternal life. Our final justification, being declared

in the right, will be at the day of judgment. We will be resurrected, judged, and declared righteous-

and given eternal life, never again to sin and die. This is the end result of the status of ‗justified‘

which we have now, as we stand in the dock facing God‘s judgment.

5:1 There‘s a noticeable change of style beginning at Rom. 5:1. Paul starts to talk about ―we‖, as if

he assumes that he has won the argument in chapters 1-4 and taken his readership with him- they

along with him are now, as it were, believers in Christ. Instead of the focus on ―justification‖ which

there is in chapters 1-4, the end result of God‘s work for us is generally replaced with the word

―life‖, i.e. eternal life, occuring 24 times in chapters 5-8. Chapters 5-8 of Romans form a definite

section. The words ―love‖, ―justify‖, ―glory‖, ―peace‖, ―hope‖, ―tribulation‖, ―save‖ and

―endurance‖ all occur in Rom. 5:1-11 and also several times in Rom. 8:18-39. These passages form

bookends [an ‗inclusio‘ is the technical term] to the material sandwiched between them. Paul is

going on from us standing before Divine judgment declared right, justified by our faith in God‘s

promise of grace. That salvation will be and is articulated in terms of life, eternal life, life lived both

now and in its fullness after we again stand before the final judgment seat of Christ.

We have peace- It's hard to avoid the conclusion that God has written His word in such a way as to

leave some things intentionally ambiguous. He could just have given us a set of brief bullet points,

written in an unambiguous manner. But instead He gave us the Bible. Given that most of His people

over history have been illiterate, they simply couldn't have been able to understand His word in an

academic, dissective, analytical sense. Take Rom. 5:1- it could read "Let us have peace"

(subjunctive) or "We have peace" (indicative). The difference is merely the length of a vowel, and

this would only have been apparent in reading it, as the difference wouldn't have been aurally

discernible when the letter was publically read. Was the "land" meant to be understood as the whole

earth, or just the land of Israel...?

Peace here refers to our being right with God, rather than a calmness in life generally. Such a thing

isn‘t promised to Christians but rather the very opposite. ―Peace with God‖ cannot be experienced if

we are continually doubting whether or not we shall ultimately be saved. We should be able to say

135

that if the Lord were to return right now, by grace, we believe that we shall surely be saved; for we

are right here and now justified before God‘s judgment seat. Therefore we experience right now

―peace with God‖.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ- previously Paul has pointed out that God has set us right with Him

simply if we can believe that He would do this. But increasingly, Paul points out that how and why

this is- He does this on account of the work of the Lord Jesus.

5:2 access into this grace wherein we stand- may be continuing the judgment image of chapters 3

and 4, in which we are left standing in the dock before the judgment of God, and by grace are

declared right when in fact we are sinners. And we stand there before God‘s judgment, very much in

grace. The language of ‗access into‘ suggests that ―this grace‖ is a situation, a ‗place‘, a status, in

which we are now permanently located. ―Access into… wherein we stand‖ is a phrase used in

classical Greek about entering a royal presence (Moo, op cit. p. 300 gives examples). So the idea is

very much of our standing in the august judgment presence of God acceptable by status. This point

needs to be more than intellectually noted; it must be our real and felt experience that we are not one

moment in an acceptable status with God, and then next we slip out of it- through inattention,

insensitivity, or downright selfish rebellion on our part. We are in a relationship, married as it were

to Him, bearing His Name, and thereby in a permanent status. Perhaps we can be so foolish as to

leave that status, but we certainly don‘t drift in and out of it insofar as we sin or avoid sinning in the

course of daily life. The very nature of the ―grace‖ status which we are in means that we are

declared right, OK with God, inspite or and even in the face of our sins.

Rejoice in hope- standing before God justified means that in the judgment day to come at the Lord‘s

return to earth, we will be accepted and given eternal life in God‘s Kingdom. We are to rejoice (Gk.

‗boast‘) in that hope quite naturally- for Paul doesn‘t exhort us to rejoice in the hope, he simply

states that given our position of grace, we, naturally, rejoice in hope. If we cannot say ―Yes‖ to the

question ―Will you be accepted before the judgment seat of Christ?‖, then I fail to see that we can

rejoice in hope. To rejoice in hope means that we have accepted God‘s judgment of us now- and His

judgment is that we are acceptable to Him, that even now, ―it‘s all OK‖. If we are to boast in this

hope- and the Greek translated ―rejoice‖ definitely means that- this would imply that we can‘t keep

quiet about such good news. We simply have to share it with others.

the glory of God- our hope to participate in this glory, which is associated in Mt. 6:13 with the

future Kingdom of God on earth, connects with what Paul has earlier reasoned in Rom. 3:23- that

we have all sinned and fallen short of God‘s glory. We who have been declared right can now

rejoice in the prospect of participating in that glory, that glorious eternal future, which we fell short

of by our sins. We commented under 3:23 that Paul is referring to writings such as the Apocalypse

of Moses, which claimed that Adam had fallen short of God‘s glory in Eden, but the hope of the

Messianic age would be Adam‘s restoration to the glory intended in Eden (Apoc. Moses 39.2-3).

Adam is everyman- a theme now to be developed specifically here in Romans 5.

5:3 Tribulations- s.w. Rom. 2:9, where we read that ―tribulation‖ will come upon the rejected,

faithless sinner at the day of judgment. Paul no doubt had in mind ―the tribulation‖ which the Olivet

prophecy and other NT Scriptures predicted would come upon the faithful in the first century. But

the connection with Rom. 2:9 suggests that he saw that in a sense, we are condemned for our sins

now, and as he explains in Romans 6, we die to sin, in baptism we take fully the condemnation for

sin, and we rise again as new people, like the Lord Jesus, who are not under condemnation. Indeed

the same word for ―tribulation‖ occurs in Rom. 8:35, where Paul exalts that tribulation, distress,

persecution, hunger, nakedness, peril and the sword cannot separate us from Christ‘s loving

acceptance; and most if not all of those terms are applied elsewhere in Scripture to the rejected at

the day of judgment. The condemnation for sin- our sins- will not separate us from Christ‘s love,

and we shall be saved all the same. If this idea of ―tribulation‖ as part of the condemnation process

for sinners is indeed somewhere in Paul‘s mind (for this is how the word is used in 2 Thess. 1:6;

136

Rev. 2:22), he would be saying that as a result of experiencing in our lives the condemnation for sin,

we come through enduring the process [―patience‖, hupomone] to ‗pass the test‘ (Rom. 5:4, AV

―experience‖ is a terribly poor translation), and through that we come to a sure hope in acceptance

at the last day and a feeling unashamed (Rom. 5:5), despite knowing we are on one hand

condemned sinners.

―Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace... let us rejoice... let us also rejoice in our

tribulations" (Rom. 5:1-3 RV). If we really feel justified due to righteousness being imputed to us,

then this will give us a joyful perspective on all suffering. For the reality that we are counted

righteous will mean that all tribulation "under the sun" is not so ultimately meaningful; and thus we

will find all joy and peace through believing.

5:4 Patience… experience… hope – see on Rom. 5:3. ―Experience‖ translates a Greek word

elsewhere translated ‗to put to the proof‘, and meaning ‗to pass the test‘. We are going through the

future judgment process right now- by passing through ―tribulation‖, living out the consequences

for our sin, but in faith in God‘s acceptance of us- we pass the test. The future day of judgment isn‘t

our ultimate test or putting to the proof; our faithful acceptance of salvation by grace today, right

now, is our crucial testing or proving.

5:5 Makes not ashamed- a significant theme in Paul and Peter (Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6).. The

believer in Christ will not be ashamed at the last day judgment, with which ―shame‖ is so often

associated for the rejected (Dan. 12:2; Lk. 14:9; Jude 13; Rev. 16:15). If we have confident hope

that we will not be rejected but will be saved at the last day, that we will not be ashamed then-

therefore nothing in this life should make us feel ashamed, not even our own sins, for the shame of

them is taken away by God‘s declaring us right.

Because the love of God- Gk. hoti isn‘t necessarily causative but it can be demonstrative. Paul may

not therefore mean that we are unashamed because the love of God is in our hearts; he may mean

that we are unashamed, as the final end result of God‘s justification process, we stand before Him

uncondemned, not in shame as are the rejected sinners; and therefore the love of God becomes shed

abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This latter option is how I interpret hoti here, because Paul

has been building up all throughout the letter to the reason why we are unashamed at judgment- it is

because we are declared legally right before God‘s judgment by God the judge of all, due to our

faith in His grace which operates through Jesus. Nothing has so far been said about the Holy Spirit

in our hearts being the basis for this unashamed position. Our standing before God justified,

declared right, forgiven, accepted at judgment, rejoicing in sure hope of eternity in the glory of

God‘s Kingdom- this leads to the love of God filling our hearts. His love for us elicits our love for

Him, and it fills our hearts.

Is shed abroad in our hearts- Tit. 3:6 uses the same word to speak of how God‘s grace has been

―shed abroad‖ abundantly upon us. The word is of course frequently used about the shedding of

Christ‘s blood; because of God‘s colossal gift to us, of His Son, bringing about our justification if

we believe in Him… then in due turn, the awareness of God‘s love is likewise shed into our hearts.

Whether we have really believed and accepted the good news is answerable by whether or not we

feel and know God‘s love to have been shed abroad, to have gushed out, into our hearts. Paul gives

the hint several times in Romans 1-8 that this situation is not drifted into; the idea of gushing out or

shedding suggests a one time moment when this happened. ‗Justification‘, the being declared legally

right, is always spoken of grammatically as if this is a one off defined event which happened to us at

a moment in the past. This moment is defined by Paul in Romans 6 as baptism, when we become

―in Christ‖. Note that he is writing to Roman Christians who had already been baptized and believed

in Christ- rather than seeking to convert unbelievers. They may well not have felt any watershed

moment at their conversion or baptism. But Paul‘s whole point is that even though they may not

have felt it emotionally, this is actually how it is in reality, and we can now appreciate it and feel the

wonder of the status into which we entered, even if it was unappreciated by us at the time. It is this

137

feature more perhaps than anything else which makes this letter so relevant to we today who read it,

who like the Romans have already believed, been baptized- and yet likely fail to appreciate the huge

implications of the position we have now entered.

By the Holy Spirit which is given unto us- the whole argument so far in Romans has said nothing

about the Holy Spirit. Note the comments under ―Because…‖ above. This isn‘t teaching that the

Holy Spirit zapped our hearts and therefore all these wonderful things are true. We are unashamed,

at the end of the process outlined in Rom. 5:3-5, because we stand at judgment day even now

uncondemned, not ashamed as the condemned are, because of our faith in God‘s grace. This is how

we come to be unashamed- not because the Holy Spirit zapped us. It is God‘s grace, justification,

which has been given unto us. We could read in an ellipsis here, as often required in reading

Romans, and understand this phrase as referring to how the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts

‗by what the Holy Spirit has given unto us‘. This would associate ‗the Holy Spirit‘ with the power

of God by which He has orchestrated and executed this entire wondrous plan of His.

Serious meditation upon the Lord's work ought to have this effect upon us. Can we really see his

agony, his bloody sweat, without a thought for our response to it? It's impossible to passively behold

it all. There is something practically compelling about it, almost in a mystical way. Because ―Christ

died for the ungodly", because in the cross ―the love of God" was commended to us, therefore ―the

love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (Rom. 5:5,6,8).

As the smitten rock gave out water, so the smitten Saviour gave out the water of the Spirit. This link

between the shedding of the Lord‘s blood and the shedding of love in our hearts is surely because an

understanding and relation to His sacrifice brings forth in the believer a response of love and

spirituality. As the love of God was shown in the cross, so it will be reflected in the heart of he who

truly knows and believes it.

5:6- see on Rom. 4:19.

Paul in Rom. 5:6-8 lays out a three point logical case for the supremacy of God‘s love. Each of

those three verses ends with the Greek word ―die‖, to stylistically emphasize the step logic.

Without strength- the Greek word is pronounced as-then-ace; ―the ungodly‖ translates a Greek word

pronounced as-eb-ace. Bearing in mind the generally illiterate nature of Paul‘s primary readership,

such literary devices which assisted memorization of the text are common in the NT. Christ died for

us before we had anything at all to commend us. He didn‘t await our faith or repentance and then

die for us, but He died for us in order to inspire those very things. Paul describes all of us as having

been saved although we were ―without strength‖, using the same word used about the disciples

asleep in Gethsemane (Mt. 26:41 = Rom. 5:6). He saw the evident similarity between them and us,

tragically indifferent in practice to the mental agony of our Lord, failing to share His intensity of

striving- although we are so willing in spirit to do this. And yet, Paul implies, be better than them.

Don't be weak [―without strength‖] and sleepy as they were when Christ wanted them awake (Mt.

26:40,41 = 1 Thess. 5:6,7). Strive for the imitation of Christ's attitude in the garden (Mt. 26:41 =

Eph. 6:18). And yet in Romans 7, a depressed but realistic Paul laments that he fails in this; his

description of the losing battle he experienced within him between flesh and spirit is couched in the

language of Christ's rebuke to the disciples in Gethsemane (the spirit was willing, but the flesh

weak).

In due time- the Greek could imply ‗at just the right time‘. Perhaps God‘s wrath was set to destroy

the earth by the time of Christ, but He came and successfully did His work at the right time. But

perhaps the idea is more that Christ died for us ―at that very time‖ when we were weak and ungodly.

He died for us in the hope of what we could potentially become through exercising faith; and our

sacrifices for others, not least in the work of preaching and nurturing, are made in the same spirit.

They are made whilst the objects of our attention appear immature, non-existent or unbelieving.

138

Christ died for- All that is true of the Lord Jesus becomes in some sense, at some time, true of each

of us who are in Him. It‘s true that nowhere in the Bible is the Lord Jesus actually called our

―representative‖, but the idea is clearly there. I suggest it‘s especially clear in all the Bible passages

which speak of Him acting huper us- what Dorothee Sölle called ―the preposition of

representation‖. Arndt and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon define huper in the genitive as

meaning ―‘for‘, ‗in behalf of‘, ‗for the sake of‘ someone. When used in the sense of representation,

huper is associated with verbs like ‗request, pray, care, work, feel, suffer, die, support‘‖. So in the

same way as the Lord representatively prays, died, cares, suffers, works ―for‖ us, we are to do

likewise, if He indeed is our representative and we His. Our prayers for another, our caring for

them, is no longer a rushed salving of our conscience through some good deed. Instead 2 Cor. 5:15

becomes our motivation: ―He died for (huper) all [of us], that they which live should not henceforth

live unto themselves, but unto him which died for (huper) them‖. We are, in our turn, to go forth

and be ―ambassadors for (huper) Christ... we pray you in Christ‘s stead (huper Christ), be

reconciled to God‖ (2 Cor. 5:20). Grasping Him as our representative means that we will be His

representatives in this world, and not leave that to others or think that our relationship in Him is so

internal we needn‘t breathe nor show a word of it to others. As He suffered ―the just for (huper) the

unjust‖ (1 Pet. 3:18), our living, caring, praying for others is no longer done ―for‖ those whom we

consider good enough, worthy enough, sharing our religious convictions and theology. For whilst

we were yet sinners, Christ died huper us (Rom. 5:6). And this representative death is to find an

issue in our praying huper others (Acts 12:5; Rom. 10:1; 15:30; 2 Cor. 1:11), just as He makes

intercession huper us (Rom. 8:26,34). We are to spend and be spent huper others, after the pattern

of the Lord in His final nakedness of death on the cross (2 Cor. 12:15). These must all be far more

than fine ideas for us. These are the principles which we are to live by in hour by hour life. And they

demand a huge amount, even the cross itself. For unto us is given ―in the behalf of Christ [huper

Christ], not only to [quietly, painlessly, theoretically] believe on Him, but also to suffer for (huper)

his sake‖ (Phil. 1:29). In all this, then, we see that the Lord‘s being our representative was not only

at the time of His death; the fact He continues to be our representative makes Him our ongoing

challenge.

Dorothee Sölle, Christ The Representative (London: S.C.M., 1967) p. 69.

W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament (Chicago:

University Of Chicago Press, 1957).

The ungodly- connecting with how we read in Rom. 4:5 that by faith, the ungodly are declared right

with God. And the context there suggests Abraham was along with us all in that category of

―ungodly‖. Elsewhere, ―the ungodly‖ are those who specifically will be condemned at the day of

judgment (1 Pet. 4:18; 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:7; Jude 15). We stand in the dock before God‘s judgment and

are condemned. We aren‘t just the passive, the rather lazy to respond to God- we are, every one of

us, ―the ungodly‖, the condemned. But Christ died for us, so that we might be declared right,

become de-condemned, have the verdict changed right around.

5:7 This verse feels like it‘s quoting some saying or verse from some other writing. The sense may

be that for a righteous man [the Greek phrase is used in this part of Romans to refer to Jesus as the

perfectly righteous one] it‘s hard to die huper him [―scarcely‖- Gk. ‗with difficulty‘], to save him-

for he isn‘t in need of saving; but for a good man, humanly ―good‖ rather than morally righteous,

some would ―dare‖ (Gk. ‗be bold‘) to die. True as this observation may be, the whole point is that

Christ died for us when we were ―sinners‖- neither morally righteous, nor humanly ‗good guys‘

who might inspire their buddy to die for them.

5:8 God commends His love- the Greek translated ―commend‖ means to set down beside, in contrast

to, over against. And it‘s in the continuous tense. God keeps on doing this. But what is His love so

continually laid down against? Surely against our sins and failures. But it keeps on being

commended through the fact that Christ died for us, whilst we were still sinners. Christ died once

139

only, and so the continual commendation of this fact is in that continually, we perceive the wonder

of it all. Our unrighteousness commends God‘s righteousness (Rom. 3:8).

While we were yet sinners- shows the greatest example in the cosmos of taking the initiative, of

seeking to save others when there is no appreciation from them at the time of what you are doing.

This is an endless inspiration in child rearing, preaching and pastoral work.

Tragically, the simple words "Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8) have been grossly misunderstood as

meaning that Christ died instead of us. There are a number of connections between Romans 5 and 1

Cor. 15 (e.g. v. 12 = 1 Cor. 15:21; v. 17 = 1 Cor. 15:22). "Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8) is matched

by "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). His death was in order to make a way whereby we can

gain forgiveness of our sins; it was in this sense that "Christ died for us". The word "for" does not

necessarily mean 'instead of'; Christ died "for (because of) our sins", not 'instead of' them. Because

of this, Christ can "make intercession" for us (Heb. 7:25) - not 'instead of' us. Neither does "for"

mean 'instead of' in Heb. 10:12 and Gal. 1:4. If Christ died ‗instead of us‘ there would be no need to

carry His cross, as He bids us. And there would be no sense in being baptized into His death and

resurrection, willingly identifying ourselves with Him as our victorious representative.

5:9 Now justified by His blood- if He died for us whilst we were unborn and before we had repented

of our sins; if right now we are counted right before God‘s judgment seat; then we can confidently

expect to being saved from ―the wrath‖ (Gk.), the condemnation at the last day. Note how Rom. 5:1

spoke of justification by our faith; here, by ―His blood‖. His blood shed for us only becomes

powerful and of any value if we believe. It‘s a tragedy that His sacrifice for us goes wasted unless

we [and others] believe. ―Much more then‖ seems to be rejoicing in playing some kind of logical

game of extension, which continues in 5:10.

In the future, at the Lord's return, we will be saved from wrath (i.e. condemnation) through Christ

(Rom. 5:9). Whilst this has already been achieved in a sense, it will be materially articulated in that

day- in that we will feel and know ourselves to be worthy of God's wrath, but then be saved from it.

We are all to some extent in the position of Zedekiah and the men of Judah, who was told that if

they accepted God‘s condemnation of them as just, and served the King of Babylon, then they

would ultimately be saved; but if they refused to accept that condemnation, then they would be

eternally destroyed (Jer. 21:9; 27:12). And the Babylonian invasion was, as we have shown

elsewhere, a type of the final judgment.

We are justified by many things, all of which are in some way parallel with each other: the blood of

Christ (Rom. 5:9), grace and the redemption which there is in His blood (Rom. 3:24), our faith in

Christ (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 2:16), the name of the Lord Jesus, the spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11), by our

confession of sin (Ps. 51:4; Lk. 18:14). All these things revolve around the death of the Lord Jesus,

the shedding of His blood. This becomes parallel with the name of Jesus, ―Christ"- because the

cross presents us with the very essence of the person of the Lord Jesus. But it is also parallel with

the spirit or mind / essence of God. Because in that naked, bleeding, derided body and person, in

that shed blood, there was the essence of all that God was to us, is to us, and ever shall be for us. It

was the cross above all which revealed to us the essence of God Almighty. And it is the cross, the

blood of Jesus, which elicits in us the confession of sin which is vital for our justification.

The idea of a Saviour dying for us (5:8) and God‘s wrath being turned away by His blood is all very

much the language of ―noble death‖ found in the stories of the Maccabees, which Paul had been

brought up on. The idea was that the Jewish martyrs in their struggle against the occupting power

had shed their blood ―to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty‖ against Israel (2 Macc. 7:37 –

38); and thereby reconciled God with His people. But Paul is deconstructing these ideas, fiercely

popular as they were amongst first century Jews. Paul‘s point is that the wrath of God is against all

human sin, and that the Lord Jesus through His willing death, rather than the Jewish heroes through

their death in battle, had brought about reconciliation and the turning away of God‘s wrath. Note in

140

passing how the Maccabees spoke of their martyrs having reconciled God, whereas Paul‘s emphasis

is upon how God has reconciled us- the change was not of God but of His people.

5:10 Reconciled- in the argument so far, Paul has talked about justification, declaring us right in a

legal sense. Now he talks about us being reconciled- as if the impartial judge becomes personally

reconciled to us as we stand in the dock. G.E. Ladd has made the informed comment that the

surrounding first century religions didn‘t speak of reconciliation, because they didn‘t offer nor even

conceive of the personal relationship between God and man which Christianity does [G.E. Ladd, A

Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 ed.) pp. 450-456]. The need for

such personal reconciliation has been implied by Paul earlier, in talking of God‘s ―wrath‖ against

sin (Rom. 1:19-32; 2:5). So the legal declaring of us as right is going to have a more personal aspect

between us and our judge; if we are now justified, His wrath is no more, and we become reconciled

on a personal level. Note that Strong defines the Greek for ―reconciled‖ as meaning ‗to change

mutually‘. This raises the whole question as to whether God in some sense has changed as a result

of His relationship with us, just as a person changes when they marry or have a child. Seeing that

God ―is Spirit‖ and isn‘t therefore static, it would seem to me that there is an element of growth

associated with His present nature. Hence we read in the continuous tense of the Father growing to

know the Son and vice versa (Mt. 11:27). This ‗growth‘ or change within God Almighty as a result

of the supreme God of the cosmos being reconciled to a few specks of dust and water on this tiny

planet… is not only awesome of itself, but a testimony to the colossal consequences of the

reconciling work of His Son. ―Being reconciled‖ is clearly a state- for 2 Cor. 5:18 likewise rejoices

that we have been reconciled to God in Christ, yet 2 Cor. 5:20 goes on to appeal to the Corinthians

to therefore ―be reconciled to God‖. This idea of living out in practice who we are by status is

perhaps the essence of Paul‘s practical appeal throughout Romans.

Saved by His life- i.e. His resurrection, in that our personal salvation depends upon resurrection

from the dead and being given eternal life. This is the significance of our baptism into His death and

resurrection. His resurrection, His life, must become ours today.

We must beware lest our theories of the atonement obscure the connection between salvation and

life- both His life and ours. Having been reconciled to God by the death of Jesus, we are ―saved by

his life‖ (Rom. 5:10). This is not only a reference to His resurrection. When He died, He

outbreathed His breath of life towards His people who stood beneath the cross. His death, and the

manner of it, inspires us to live the life which He lived. And this is the eternal kind of life, the life

we will eternally live in the Kingdom with Him. His death was not solely the merit that supplies

forgiveness. The cross was His life the most fully displayed and triumphant, forever breaking the

power of sin over our street-level human existence by what it inspires in us. Our lives, the ordinary

minutes and hours of our days, become transformed by His death. For we cannot passively behold

Him there, and not respond. We cannot merely mentally assent to correct doctrine about the

atonement. It brings forth a life lived; which is exactly why correct understanding of it is so

important. We are inspired to engage in His form of life, with all the disciplines of prayer, solitude,

simple and sacrificial living, intense study and meditation in the Father‘s word which characterized

our Lord‘s existence. For His cross was the summation of the life He lived. We quite rightly teach

new converts the need for attending meetings, giving of time and money to the Lord‘s cause, doing

good to others, Bible reading. But over and above all these things, response to the cross demands a

life seriously modelled upon His life.

5:11 Not only so- it‘s not all jam tomorrow, a hope of resurrection from the dead in the future. We

joy right now, because through Christ ―we have now received the atonement‖, s.w. ―reconciliation‖,

the reconciling spoken of in v. 10. The courtroom ‗declaring right‘ or innocent goes much further-

we become personally set right with the Judge Himself. The whole world has in a sense been

reconciled to God, but we are those who have ―received‖ that reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).

141

5:12 Therefore – this word carries much meaning. It is picked up again in Rom. 5:18, the

intervening verses being in parenthesis. It almost seems that Adam sinned in order that God‘s grace

might be the more powerfully revealed.

In the New Testament we find Paul writing, as a Jew, to both Jews and Gentiles who had converted

to Christ, and yet were phased by the huge amount of apostate Jewish literature and ideas which was

then floating around. For example, the book of Romans is full of allusions to the "Wisdom of

Solomon", alluding and quoting from it, and showing what was right and what was wrong in it.

Wisdom 2:24 claimed: "Through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to

his company experience it". And Paul alludes to this, and corrects it, by saying in Rom. 5:12: ""By

one man [Adam- not 'the devil'] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed

upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is one of many such examples. Jude does the same

thing, quoting and alluding to the apostate Book of Enoch, correcting the wrong ideas, and at times

quoting the ideas back against those who used them.

In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan (Josh. 7:1,11) etc. were

reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was

reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (2 Cor.

5:21). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins

were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with

us. The degree of our guilt by association is hard to measure, but in some sense we sinned "in

Adam" (Rom. 5:12 AVmg.) In the context of Rom. 5, Paul is pointing an antithesis between

imputed sin by association with Adam, and imputed righteousness by association with Christ. In

response to the atonement we have experienced, should we not like our Lord be reaching out to

touch the lepers, associating ourselves with the weak in order to bring them to salvation- rather than

running away from them for fear of 'guilt by association'?

The difficulty we have in understanding our sinning somehow ―in Adam‖ may be the result of our

failure to appreciate the extent of corporate solidarity in Hebrew thinking. This has been

documented at great depth in H.W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). This corporate solidarity (even if ―corporate personality‖ is a bridge

too far) doesn‘t mean that we personally sinned with Adam or are directly culpable for his sin.

Adam is everyman- the Hebrew ―adam‖ means just that, man. The concern expressed by many as to

why babies and the mentally unaccountable still die is a valid one, but I don‘t think it‘s solved by

postulating that they sinned ―in Adam‖. Paul is writing to Christians in Rome, and he is explaining

why they die. The question of infants isn‘t in his purview here. Likewise when he talks about

―death‖ in Romans, he seems to often have in view the second death, the permanent death to be

meted out at the judgment seat to those condemned for their sins, rather than ‗death‘ in the general

sense. Such death, condemnation at the last day, passes upon us all, but all in Adam in this sense are

also those who are now in Christ. It is this apparent paradox which can lead to the almost

schizophrenic feelings for Christians which Paul explains in Romans 7. The apparent parallel drawn

between those ―in Adam‖ and those ―in Christ‖ would suggest that those ―in Adam‖ whom Paul has

in view are not every human being, but those now ―in Christ‖ who have also been, and still are in a

sense, ―in Christ‖.

Paul emphasized that it was by one male, Adam, that sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12)- in designed

contrast to the contemporary Jewish idea that Eve was to be demonized as the femme fatale, the

woman who brought sin into the world. Thus Ecclesiasticus 25:4: "From a woman sin had its

beginning, and because of her we all die". Paul is alluding to this and insisting quite the opposite-

that Adam , the male, was actually the one initially responsible. Paul can hardly be accused of being

against women! Another example of Paul‘s conscious rebellion against the contemporary position

of women is to be found in Rom. 5:12: ―By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin‖.

This is an intended rebuttal of Ecclesiasticus 25:24: ―From a woman sin had its beginning, and

142

because of her we all die‖. This allusion is one of many reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as

inspired. The idea that women were second class because Eve, not Adam, was the source of sin was

widespread. Tertullian (On Female Dress, 1.1) wrote: ―You [woman] are the first deserter of the

Divine law… on account of your desert, that is, death, the Son of God had to die‖. And Paul is

consciously countering that kind of thinking.

Adam: The First Sinner

The classical view of the fall supposes that as Eve's teeth sunk into the fruit, the first sin was

committed, and soon afterwards Adam followed suite, resulting in the curse falling upon humanity.

What I want to discuss is whether the eating of the fruit was in fact the first sin. If it was, then Eve

sinned first. Straight away, the Bible-minded believer comes up with a problem: the New Testament

unmistakably highlights Adam as the first sinner; by his transgression sin entered the world (Rom.

5:12). So sin was not in the world before his transgression. The ground was cursed for the sake of

Adam's sin (Gen. 3:17). This all suggests that Eve wasn't the first sinner. The fact Eve was deceived

into sinning doesn't mean she didn't sin (1 Tim. 2:14). She was punished for her sin; and in any case,

ignorance doesn't mean that sin doesn't count as sin (consider the need for offerings of ignorance

under the Law). So, Eve sinned; but Adam was the first sinner, before his sin, sin had not entered

the world. We must also remember that Eve was deceived by the snake, and on account of this was

"(implicated / involved) in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). "The transgression". Which

transgression? Surely Adam's (Rom. 5:14); by listening to the snake she became implicated in

Adam's sin. The implication is that "the transgression" was already there for her to become

implicated in it by listening to the serpent. This is the very opposite to the idea of Adam being

implicated in Eve's sin.

So I want to suggest that in fact the eating of the fruit was not the first sin; it was the final physical

consequence of a series of sins, spiritual weakness and sinful attitudes on Adam's part. They were

mainly sins of omission rather than commission, and for this reason we tend to not notice them; just

as we tend to treat our own sins of omission far less seriously than our sins of commission. What

happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in it, and commanded not to

eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are then brought before him for naming; then he is put

into a deep sleep, and Eve is created. Then the very first command Adam and Eve jointly received

was to have children, and go out into the whole earth (i.e. out of the Garden of Eden) and subdue it

to themselves (Gen. 1:28). The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was

created. There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, "a help meet"; literally, 'an opposite

one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and then go out of the garden and subdue the

earth. It would have been obvious to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was

physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She was designed to be his

'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to him. Gen. 2:24 implies that he should have cleaved

to her and become one flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And yet

he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they failed to produce children until after

the fall. If he had consummated his marriage with her, presumably she would have produced

children (this deals a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual

relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her temptation as a virgin (2 Cor.

11:2,3). Instead, Adam put off obedience to the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to

this in 1 Cor. 7:5, where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse "lest

Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending how closely one reads

Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming

together' with his wife.

But Adam said something to Eve (as they lay there?). He alone had been commanded not to eat the

tree of knowledge. Yet when Eve speaks to the serpent, it is evident that Adam had told her about it,

but not very deeply. She speaks of "the tree that is in the midst of the garden" rather than "the tree of

143

knowledge". She had been told by Adam that they must not even touch it, even though this is not

what God had told Adam (Gen. 2:16,17 cp. 3:2,3). So we are left with the idea that Adam turned to

Eve and as it were wagged his finger at her and said 'Now you see that tree over there in the middle,

don't you even touch it or else there'll be trouble, O.K.'. She didn't understand, he didn't explain that

it was forbidden because it was the tree of knowledge, and so she was deceived into eating it- unlike

Adam, who understood what he was doing (1 Tim. 2:14) (1). Adam's emphasis was on not

committing the sin of eating the fruit; he said nothing to her about the need to multiply and subdue

the earth.

The next we know, Adam and Eve have separated, she is talking to the snake, apparently indifferent

to the command to subdue the animals, to be their superiors, rather than listen to them as if they

actually had superior knowledge. When the snake questioned: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat

of every tree..." (Gen. 3:1), Eve was in a weak position because Adam hadn't fully told her what

God had said. Hence she was deceived, but Adam wasn't.

So, why didn't Adam tell her more clearly what God had said? I would suggest that he was

disillusioned with the wife God gave him; he didn't have intercourse with her as he had been asked,

he separated from her so that she was alone with the snake. "The woman, whom thou gavest to be

with me, she gave me of the tree..." (Gen. 3:12) seems to reflect more than a hint of resentment

against Eve and God's provision of her. Not only was Adam disillusioned with Eve, but he failed to

really take God's word seriously. Romans 5 describes Adam's failure in a number of parallel ways:

"transgression... sin... offence... disobedience (Rom. 5:19)". "Disobedience" translates a Greek word

which is uncommon. Strong defines it as meaning 'inattention', coming from a root meaning 'to

mishear'. It is the same word translated "neglect to hear" in Mt. 18:17. Adam's sin, his transgression,

his offence was therefore not eating the fruit in itself; it was disobedience, neglecting to hear. That

this neglecting to hear God's word seriously was at the root of his sin is perhaps reflected in God's

judgment on him: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife..." rather than God's

voice (Gen. 3:17).

Adam's sin was therefore a neglecting to seriously hear God's word, a dissatisfaction with and

effective rejection of his God-given wife, a selfish unwillingness to leave the garden of Eden and go

out and subdue the earth (cp. our natural instincts), and a neglection of his duty to multiply children

in God's image (cp. preaching and pastoral work). All these things were sins of omission; he may

well have reasoned that he would get round to them later. All these wrong attitudes and sins of

omission, apparently unnoticed and uncondemned, led to the final folly of eating the fruit: the first

sin of commission. And how many of our more public sins are prefaced by a similar process? Truly

Adam's sin was the epitome of all our sins. Romans 5 points an antithesis between Adam and

Christ. Adam's one act of disobedience which cursed us is set off against Christ's one act of

righteousness which blessed us. Yet Christ's one act was not just His death; we are saved by His life

too (Rom. 5:10). Christ lived a life of many acts of righteousness and refusal to omit any part of His

duty, and crowned it with one public act of righteousness in His death. The implication is that Adam

committed a series of disobediences which culminated in one public act of commission: he ate the

fruit.

There are three lines of argument which confirm this picture of what happened in Eden which we

have presented. Firstly, Adam and Eve were ashamed at their nakedness. Perhaps this was because

they realized what they should have used their sexuality for. Eating the tree of knowledge gave them

knowledge of good (i.e. they realized the good they should have done in having children) and also

evil (the capacities of their sexual desire?). Adam first called his wife "woman", but after the fall he

called her "Eve" because he recognized she was the mother of living ones (Gen. 3:20). By doing so

he seems to be recognizing his failure of not reproducing through her as God had originally asked

him. The way they immediately produce a child after the fall is surely an expression of their

repentance.

144

Secondly, it seems that God punishes sin in a way which is appropriate to the sin. Consider how

David so often asks God to take the wicked in their own snare- and how often this happens. The

punishment of Adam and Eve was appropriate to the sins they committed. What Adam wasn't

bothered to do, i.e. have intercourse with his woman, became the very thing which now every fallen

man will sell his soul for. They ate the tree of knowledge, they knew they were naked, and then

Adam knew Eve (Gen. 4:1); this chain of connection certainly suggests that sexual desire, whilst not

wrong in itself, was part of the result of eating the tree. There is an artless poetic justice and

appropriacy in this which seems simply Divine. What they couldn't be bothered to do became the

very thing which has probably generated more sin and desire to do than anything else. Adam was to

rule over Eve as a result of the fall- the very thing he wasn't bothered to do. Eve's punishment was

that her desire was for her husband- perhaps suggesting that she too had no desire for Adam

sexually, and therefore was willing to delay obedience to the command to multiply. They were both

driven out of the garden- perhaps reflecting how they should have left the garden in obedience to

God's command to go out and subdue the natural creation to themselves. Because Adam wasn't

bothered to do this, even when it was within his power, therefore nature was given a special power

against man which he would never be able to overcome, and which would eventually defeat him

(Gen. 3:17-19). This all shows the logic of obedience; we will be made to pay the price of

obedience even if we disobey- therefore it is logical to obey.

Thirdly, there seems evidence that the eating of the fruit happened very soon after their creation.

Eve hadn't seen the tree before the serpent pointed it out to her (Gen. 3:6); and consider that they

could eat of all the trees, but not of the tree of knowledge. But what about the tree of life? This

wasn't forbidden, and yet had they eaten of it, they would have lived for ever. We are told that this

tree brings forth fruit every month (Rev. 22:2); so presumably it had not fruited, implying the fall

was within the first month after creation.

The practical outcome of what happened in Eden is that we are to see in Adam's sin an epitome of

our essential weaknesses. And how accurate it is. His failure was principally due to sins of

omission, of delaying to do God's will because it didn't take his fancy. Time and again Biblical

history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical

commission (e.g. Gen. 20:16; 38:10). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (Ps. 36:4).

Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the

tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn't outweigh his omission here (1 Chron. 15:13).

The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchres of the prophets without erecting

a placard stating that their fathers had killed them. We have a debt to preach to the world; we are

their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (Rom. 1:14). Israel sinned not only by

worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required (1 Sam. 8:8). Adam

stayed in the garden rather than go out to subdue the earth. Our equivalent is our spiritual

selfishness, our refusal to look outside of ourselves into the world of others. Because things like

disinterest in preaching or inattention to subduing our animal instincts are sins of omission rather

than commission, we too tend to overlook them. We effectively neglect to hear God's word,

although like Adam we may make an appearance of half-heartedly teaching it to others. And even

when we do this, like Adam we tend to focus on avoidal of committing sin rather than examining

ourselves for the likelihood of omission, not least in our lack of spiritual responsibility for others.

Because of his spiritual laziness, Adam's sin led Eve into deception and thereby sin, and brought

suffering on untold billions. His sin is the epitome of ours. So let us really realize: none of us sins or

is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of

righteousness on others.

Notes (1) There are similarities in more conservative Christian groups; e.g. the father or husband who lays

the law down about the need for wearing hats without explaining to his wife or daughter why.

145

Romans and the Wisdom of Solomon

Seeing Romans 1-8 is Paul‘s inspired exposition of the nature of sin and the Gospel, it‘s surely

surprising that he makes no mention of the words Satan or Devil, let alone ‗fallen Angel‘. He lays

the blame for sin quite clearly upon us and our weakness in the face of internal temptation. And

Paul speaks of the Genesis account of the fall of Adam and Eve as if he accepted it just as it is

written – he makes no attempt to say that the serpent was a Lucifer or fallen Angel. In fact, closer

analysis shows that Paul is consciously rebutting the contemporary Jewish ideas about these things

as found in The Wisdom of Solomon and other writings. We must remember that in the first century,

there was no canonized list of books comprising the ―Old Testament‖ as we now know it. There was

therefore a great need to deconstruct the uninspired Jewish writings which were then circulating –

hence the many allusions to them in the inspired New Testament writings, in order to help the

Jewish believers understand that these writings were uninspired and to be rejected.

The flood of apostate Jewish literature in the first century and just before it all have much to say

about Adam‘s sin (e.g. the Apocalypse of Baruch and Apocalypse of Abraham), and I submit that

Paul writes of Adam‘s sin in order to deconstruct these wrong interpretations. Wisdom 2:24

claimed: ―Through the Devil‘s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company

experience it‖. This is actually the first reference to the idea that a being called ‗the Devil‘ envied

Adam and Eve and therefore this brought about their temptation and fall. Paul rebuts this by saying

that ―By one man [Adam – not ‗the Devil‘] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so

death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned‖ (Rom. 5:12). This is evidently an allusion by

Paul to this wrong idea – and he corrects it. The allusion becomes all the more legitimate when we

appreciate that actually Paul is alluding to the Wisdom of Solomon throughout his letter to the

Romans. This book glorified the Jewish people, making them out to be righteous, blaming sin on the

Devil and the Gentiles. By way of allusion to it, Paul shows how the Jews are de-emphasizing sin,

not facing up to the fact that all of humanity are under the curse of sin and death, and all therefore

need salvation in Christ. This same basic emphasis upon personal responsibility, not blaming others

for our sins, not seeing ourselves as pure and everyone else as the problem, is just as relevant today

– surrounded as we are by false theologies that make us out to be basically pure, shifting all blame

onto a ‗Devil‘ of their own fabrication. It should be noted that this way of alluding to contemporary

writings and correcting them is common throughout Scripture – I‘ve elsewhere given examples of

where Jude and Peter do this in relation to the Book of Enoch, and how Genesis 1–3 does this with

the views of creation and origins which were common at the time the book of Genesis was

compiled.

Wisdom of Solomon 13–14 criticizes the Gentiles for idolatry and sexual immorality. And Paul

criticizes the Gentiles for just the same things in Rom. 1:19–27 – in language which clearly alludes

to the Wisdom of Solomon. It‘s as if Paul is reviewing the Wisdom of Solomon and placing a tick

by what is right (e.g., that Gentiles are indeed guilty of idolatry and immorality), and a cross by

what is wrong in the book. E.P. Sanders has observed: ―Romans 1:18–32 is very close to the

Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish book written in Egypt. Paul‘s reference to ‗images representing...

birds, animals or reptiles‘ (Rom. 1:23) points to... Egypt. Birds, animals and reptiles were idolized

in Egypt, but not commonly in the rest of the Graeco–Roman world‖ (1)

. The point of the reference

to these things would therefore simply be because Paul is alluding to, almost quoting, the Wisdom

of Solomon.

Paul’s Other Allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon

Having spoken of how ―the destroyer‖ destroyed the Egyptian firstborn, Wisdom 18 goes on to

speak of how this same ―destroyer‖ tried to kill Israel in the wilderness, but the evil ―destroyer‖ was

stopped by Moses: ―For then the blameless man made haste, and stood forth to defend them; and

146

bringing the shield of his proper ministry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense, set himself

against the wrath, and so brought the calamity to an end, declaring that he was thy servant. So he

overcame the destroyer, not with strength of body, nor force of arms, but with a word subdued him

that punished, alleging the oaths and covenants made with the fathers (Wisdom 18:21,22). Paul in 1

Cor. 10 alludes to this – showing that ―the destroyer‖ was sent by God to punish Israel‘s sins. The

author of Wisdom speaks as if ―the destroyer‖ is some evil being victimizing Israel – and Paul

appears to correct that, showing that it was the same ―Destroyer‖ Angel who protected Israel in

Egypt who later slew the wicked amongst them. Wisdom 19 makes out that all sins of Israel in the

wilderness were committed by Gentiles travelling with them – but Paul‘s account of Israel‘s history

in 1 Cor. 10 makes it clear that Israel sinned and were punished.

It should be noted in passing that 1 Cor. 10:1–4 also alludes to the Jewish legend that the rock

which gave water in Num. 21:16–18 somehow followed along behind the people of Israel in the

wilderness to provide them with water. Paul is not at all shy to allude to or quote Jewish legends,

regardless of their factual truth, in order to make a point [as well as to deconstruct them]. God

Himself is not so primitive as to seek to ‗cover Himself‘ as it were by only alluding to true factual

history in His word; He so wishes dialogue with people that He appears quite happy for His word to

refer to their mistaken ideas, in order to enter into dialogue and engagement with them in terms

which they are comfortable with. Another example of allusion to Jewish legend is in Rev. 2:17,

where the Lord Jesus speaks of giving His people ―of the hidden manna‖ – referring to the myth that

Jeremiah had hidden a golden jar of manna in the Holy of Holies at the destruction of the temple in

586 BC, which then ascended to Heaven and is to return with Messiah. Jesus doesn‘t correct that

myth – He as it were runs with it and uses it as a symbol to describe the reward He will bring. He

adds no footnote to the effect ‗Now do understand, this is myth, that jar never really ascended to

Heaven nor will it come floating back through the skies one day‘. Perhaps this is why the New

Testament often quotes the Septuagint text, even where it incorrectly renders the Hebrew original –

because God is not so paranoid as to feel bound to only deal in the language of strictly literal truths.

If first century people were familiar with the Septuagint, even if is a poor translation of the Hebrew

original in places – well OK, God was willing to run with that in order to engage with people in

their language. And this approach is very helpful in seeking to understand some of the Biblical

references to incorrect ideas about Satan and demons.

It seems to me that Paul‘s allusion to wrong Jewish ideas in order to deconstruct them is actually a

hallmark of his inspired writing. Ecclesiasticus is another such Jewish writing which he targets in

Romans; Rom. 4:1–8 labours the point that Abraham was declared righteous by faith and not by the

Law, which was given after Abraham‘s time; the covenant promises to Abraham were an expression

of grace, and the ‗work‘ of circumcision was done after receiving them. All this appears to be in

purposeful allusion to the words of Ecclus. 44:21: ―Abraham kept the law of the Most High, and

was taken into covenant with Him‖.

Note (1) E.P. Sanders, Paul (Oxford: O.U.P., 1996) p. 113.

Allusions From Paul’s Letter to The Romans to The Wisdom of Solomon

The Wisdom of Solomon Romans Comment

Wisdom 4:5 The imperfect branches

shall be broken off, their fruit

unprofitable, not ripe to eat, yea, meet

for nothing [concerning the Gentiles and

those in Israel who sinned].

Romans

w11:17–20

Israel as an entire nation were the

broken off branches; Gentile

believers through faith in Christ

could become ingrafted branches.

Wisdom 1:13 For God made not death: Romans Death is ―the judgment of God‖ –

147

neither hath he pleasure in the

destruction of the living.

1:32;

Romans 5,7

death does come from God. It doesn‘t

come from ―the Devil‖. It was God in

Genesis who ‗made‘ death. Death

comes from our sin, that‘s Paul‘s

repeated message – death isn‘t

something made by the ‗Devil‘ just

for the wicked.

Wisdom 1:14 For he created all things,

that they might have their being: and the

generations of the world were healthful;

and there is no poison of destruction in

them, nor the kingdom of death upon the

earth: [in the context of the earth / land

of Israel]

Romans

1,5,7

Paul makes many allusions to these

words. He shows that all humanity,

including Israel, the dwellers upon

the earth / land of Israel, are subject

to sin and death. Paul argues against

the position that God made man good

but the Devil messed things up –

rather does he place the blame upon

individual human sin.

Wisdom 8:20 I was a witty child, and

had a good spirit. Yea rather, being

good, I came into a body undefiled.

Romans 3,7 As a result of Adam‘s sin, our bodies

aren‘t ―undefiled‖ – we will die, we

are born with death sentences in us.

―There is none good‖ (Rom. 3:12);

―in my flesh dwells no good thing‖

(Rom. 7:18)

Wisdom 10:15 She delivered the

righteous people and blameless seed

from the nation that oppressed them.

Romans 9–

11

Israel were not blameless; ―there is

none righteous, not one‖ (Rom.

3:10).

Wisdom 12:10 But executing thy

judgments upon them by little and little,

thou gavest them place of repentance

Romans 2:4 ― Or despisest thou the riches of his

goodness and forbearance and

longsuffering, not knowing that the

goodness of God leadeth thee to

repentance?‖ (Rom. 2:4). Paul‘s

argument is that it is God‘s grace in

not immediately punishing us as we

deserve which should lead us to

repentance.

Wisdom 12 raves against the Canaanite

nations in the land, saying how wicked

they were and stressing Israel‘s

righteousness – e.g. Wisdom 12:11 For it

was a cursed seed from the beginning;

neither didst thou for fear of any man

give them pardon for those things

wherein they sinned.

Romans

1,2,9–11

Paul uses the very same language

about the wickedness of Israel

Wisdom 12:12 For who shall say, What

hast thou done? or who shall withstand

thy judgment? or who shall accuse thee

for the nations that perish, whom thou

made? or who shall come to stand against

thee, to be revenged for the unrighteous

Romans

8:30–39;

9:19

Wisdom marvels at how God judged

the wicked Canaanites. But Paul

reapplies this language to marvel at

God‘s mercy in saving the faithful

remnant of Israel by grace. Paul‘s

answer to ―Who shall accuse thee

148

men? [Israel]?‖ is that only those in Christ

have now no accuser (Rom. 8:34).

Wisdom 12:13 uses the phrase

―condemned at the day of the righteous

judgment of God‖ about the

condemnation of the Canaanite tribes.

Romans 2:5 Paul stresses that Israel will be

condemned at the ―day of the

righteous judgment of God‖ (Rom.

2:5)

Wisdom 12:22 Therefore, whereas thou

dost chasten us, thou scourgest our

enemies a thousand times more, to the

intent that, when we judge, we should

carefully think of thy goodness, and when

we ourselves are judged, we should look

for mercy.

Romans

2:1–4;

11:28; 14:4

Paul says that Israel are the

―enemies‖ (Rom. 11:28); and that

judging is outlawed for those who

are themselves sinners. Paul‘s case is

that we receive mercy at the

judgment because we have shown

mercy rather than judgment to

others.

Wisdom 13:1 Surely vain are all men by

nature, who are ignorant of God, and

could not out of the good things that are

seen know him that is.

Romans

1,10

Wisdom‘s implication is that the

Gentiles are vain by nature, but

Israel aren‘t, because they aren‘t

ignorant of God, and see Him

reflected in the ―good things‖ of His

creation. Paul contradicts this. He

says that all humanity is ―vain... by

nature‖; Israel are ―ignorant of God‖

(Rom. 10:3); and it is believers in

Christ who perceive God from the

things which He has made. Indeed, it

is Israel who are now ―without

excuse‖ because they refuse to see

―the goodness of God‖ [cp. ―good

things‖] in the things which He has

created (Rom. 1:20–30).

Wisdom 12:26 But they that would not be

reformed by that correction, wherein he

dallied with them, shall feel a judgment

worthy of God.

Wisdom 12:27 For, look, for what things

they grudged, when they were punished,

that is, for them whom they thought to be

gods; now being punished in them, when

they saw it, they acknowledged him to be

the true God, whom before they denied to

know: and therefore came extreme

damnation upon them.

Romans 1 It is Israel and all who continue in

sin who are worthy of judgment

(Rom. 1:32). It was Israel who

changed the true God into what they

claimed to be gods (Rom. 1:20–26).

Wisdom 13:5–8: For by the greatness and

beauty of the creatures proportionably the

maker of them is seen. But yet for this

they are the less to be blamed: for they

peradventure err, seeking God, and

desirous to find him. For being

Romans 1,2 It is Gentile Christians who ‗found‘

God (Rom. 10:20). It was they who

were led by the beauty of God‘s

creation to be obedient to Him in

truth (Rom. 2:14,15). It was Israel

who failed to ‗clearly see‘ the truth

149

conversant in his works they search him

diligently, and believe their sight: because

the things are beautiful that are seen.

Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned.

of God from the things which He

created (Rom. 1:20).

Wisdom 14:8 But that which is made with

hands is cursed, as well it, as he that made

it: he, because he made it; and it, because,

being corruptible, it was called god.

Romans

1:23

It was Israel who changed the glory

of the true God into images made by

their hands and called them gods

(Rom. 1:23)

Wisdom 14:9 For the ungodly and his

ungodliness are both alike hateful unto

God.

Romans

4:5; 5:6

Paul argues that Christ died for the

ungodly before they knew Him

(Rom. 5:6); God justifies the

ungodly not by their works but by

their faith (Rom. 4:5)

Wisdom 14:31 For it is not the power of

them by whom they swear: but it is the

just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth

always the offence of the ungodly.

Romans 5 Paul argues that the offence of man

is met by God‘s grace in Christ, and

not dealt with by God through taking

out vengeance against sinners. It was

the ―offence‖ of Adam which was

used by God‘s grace to forge a path

to human salvation (Rom. 5:15–20).

As ―the offence‖ abounded, so

therefore did God‘s grace (Rom.

5:20).

Wisdom 15:2 For if we [Israel] sin, we

are thine, knowing thy power: but we will

not sin, knowing that we are counted

thine.

Wisdom 15:3 For to know thee is perfect

righteousness: yea, to know thy power is

the root of immortality.

Romans 3 Paul argues that we all sin – it‘s not

a case of ‗we don‘t sin, because we

are God‘s people‘ (Rom. 3:23). And

knowledge isn‘t the basis for

immortality, rather this is the gift of

God by grace (Rom. 6:23). Paul

leaves us in no doubt that there‘s no

question of ―if we sin‖; for we are all

desperate sinners, Jew and Gentile

alike (Rom. 3:23). And our sin really

does separate us from God and from

His Son; we are ―none of His‖ if we

sin (Rom. 8:9 – cp. ―we are thine‖).

We are not automatically ―His...

even if we sin‖. Paul speaks of how

both Jew and Gentile are equally

under sin; whereas Wisdom claims

that there‘s a difference: ―While

therefore thou dost chasten us, thou

scourgest our enemies [i.e. the

Gentiles] ten thousand times more‖

(12:22).

Wisdom 15:7 For the potter, tempering

soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with

much labour for our service: yea, of the

same clay he maketh both the vessels that

Romans

9:21–30

Wisdom mocks the potter for making

idols – Paul shows that God is the

potter and Israel the clay, and they

will be discarded like an idol. For

150

serve for clean uses, and likewise also all

such as serve to the contrary: but what is

the use of either sort, the potter himself is

the judge.

they became like that which they

worshipped. Paul uses the same

language as Wisdom here – he

speaks of how the Divine potter uses

―the same clay to make different

types of vessels.

Wisdom 15 often laments that the

Gentiles worship the created more than

the creator

Romans 1

and 2

Romans 1 and 2 make the point,

using this same language, that Israel

as well as the Gentiles are guilty of

worshipping the created more than

creator

Wisdom 18:8 For wherewith thou didst

punish our adversaries, by the same thou

didst glorify us, whom thou hadst called.

cp. Romans

8:30

The ―us‖ who have been ―called‖

and are to be ―glorified‖ are those in

Christ – not those merely born Jews.

Wisdom 18:13 For whereas they would

not believe anything by reason of the

enchantments; upon the destruction of the

firstborn, they acknowledged this people

to be the sons of God.

cp. Romans

8:14

The true ―sons of God‖ are those in

Christ, the Son of God; for not those

who merely call themselves ―Israel‖

are the children of God, as Wisdom

wrongly argues (Rom. 9:6)

As for the ungodly, wrath came upon

them without mercy unto the end: for he

knew before what they would do... For

the destiny, whereof they were worthy,

drew them unto this end, and made them

forget the things that had already

happened, that they might fulfil the

punishment which was wanting to their

torments‖ (Wisdom 19:1,4)

What Wisdom says about the Gentile

world and Egypt, Paul applies to

Israel in their sinfulness. And he

stresses many times that the result of

sin is death (Rom. 6:23), not

―torments‖ in the way the Jews

understood them. ―Wrath... without

mercy‖ is a phrase Paul uses about

the coming condemnation of those

Jews who refused to accept Christ

(Rom. 1:18; 2:5,8). Paul uses the

idea of foreknowledge which occurs

here in Wisdom, but uses it in

Romans 9 and 11 to show that

foreknowledge is part of the grace of

God‘s predestination of His true

people to salvation. It is the Jews

who reject Christ who are ―worthy‖

of death (Rom. 1:32) – not the

Gentile world. No wonder the Jews

so hated Paul!

5:13 Until the law sin was in the world… death reigned from Adam to Moses (v. 14)- this could be

Paul‘s way of countering the objection that his teaching that it was the Law of Moses which brought

condemnation (Rom. 4:15) wrongly implied that there could have been no death before the Law.

Not imputed- i.e. we do not have to appear at the day of judgment and answer for our sin if we

didn‘t know God‘s Law, and we broke it in ignorance?

5:14 Nevertheless death reigned- Paul is demonstrating that the whole world is under sin, even

those who don‘t know God‘s law. They die because they themselves sin, albeit in ignorance, and

151

because of their relation to Adam. He‘s building up the picture of every single human being as

having a desperate need for forgiveness and finding the answer in Jesus- who therefore is the

Saviour designed and intended for all people, not just Jews.

Him that was to come- a phrase the Jewish writings used about Moses, but which Paul tellingly

reapplies to the Lord Jesus (For documentation see Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in

Pauline Anthropology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) pp. 80,81). Paul‘s letter is densely packed

with allusions to Jewish writings- and this explains some of the apparently awkward grammatical

constructions and some of the otherwise strange phrases, often using words and concepts which

don‘t occur in the rest of Paul‘s writings. Instead of spilling ink trying to exactly understand some

of the phrases in Romans- and this letter has produced more tautuous, unhelpful, highly abstracted

commentary than any other- it may be wiser to assume that those difficult passages are in fact

allusions to extant Jewish writings or thinking contemporary with Paul, which at present we are

unaware of.

5:15 The offence… the free gift- begins an extended comparison and contrast between the results of

Adam‘s sin and disobedience, and the grace [s.w. ―free gift‖] given as a result of Christ‘s obedience.

This is all in demonstration of the comment in 5:14 that Adam- or more specifically, ―Adam‘s

transgression‖- was a type of the Lord Jesus. The type works not only by similarity but by inverse

contrasts. By doing so, we see how God rejoices in showing grace, almost playing intellectual

games to demonstrate how much greater and more abundant is His grace than the power of sin. And

this is done in order to persuade us, the doubting readership, of the simple reality- that His grace is

for real, and we really will be and are saved and secure in Christ.

Through… one, many be dead- the point of similarity here is that just one person can affect many.

We may doubt that the obedience of one man, the Lord Jesus, 2000 years ago, can really have much

to do with you and me today. That it all happened, I don‘t think we seriously doubt any more than

we doubt standard historical facts. But a man hanging on a stake of wood on a Friday afternoon, on

a day in April, just outside a Middle Eastern city… can He really do anything for all of us here

today? We may never articulate it, say it in so many words. But that is at least our unspoken,

unverbalized, unformulated, under the bedcovers nagging doubt, the bane of our deepest spiritual

psychology, the fear of our soul, the cloud that comes betwixt as we look up at the steely silence of

the skies, or gaze at the ceiling rose as we lay upon our bed. Paul tackles that doubt (and Romans 1-

8 is really a tackling of human doubts about God‘s grace) by quoting the example of Adam.

Through ‗just‘ one, death and suffering affected many. If Adam is proof enough of ‗the power of

one‘- then how much more is Jesus?

Has abounded- the Greek means to superabound, to be lavished, to be poured out in over

abundance. The ―gift‖ which so abounds is surely a reference to the language of Mt. 25:29, where

at the final judgment, he that has shall be given to yet more, ―in abundance‖ [s.w.]. Yet our receipt

of that grace in this life is a foretaste of that superabundance we are yet to receive. Superabundant

generosity characterizes God. We note that when the Lord multiplied the loaves and fishes, there

superabounded 12 full baskets and then seven full baskets (Mt. 14:20; 15:37). Why the apparent

over creation of food? For what purpose was there such waste? Why is the same strange word for

superabundance used both times? And why is it used in three of the four Gospels when this incident

is recorded (Lk. 9:17; Jn. 6:12,13; Mt. 14:20; 15:37)? Surely to give us the impression of the

lavishing of God‘s gift, His grace, when He provides for His children. We have experienced the

same from Him, and should be like this towards others.Paul often uses the word in 2 Corinthians in

appealing for generosity to poorer brethren; he speaks of how God‘s grace has superabounded, and

how we also ought to superabound in kindness and generosity to others (2 Cor. 9:8). We will

eternally know the truth and reality of all this, because we will not only be given eternal life, but life

―more abundantly‖ (Jn. 10:10). We must ask ourselves to what extent we show that same quality of

super abundant grace to others.

152

5:16 the judgment- the result of the legal case, the final verdict. This is contrasted with ―the gift‖, as

if the judge hands down the verdict but then profers us the gift of being declared right. The verdict

can mean at times the actual execution of the punishment (as in Rom. 2:2,3; 3:8; 1 Cor. 11:29,34).

In this sense, we were actually condemned- not threatened with it and let off.

unto justification- dikaioma, s.w. ―righteousness‖. The free gift of salvation apart from our works

actually inspires righteousness- performed in gratitude for salvation, rather than in order to attain

salvation. Or we could still read the word as referring to a decree which counts us as right, reversing

that of condemnation.

The contrast is between the one man who brought the verdict of condemnation upon many, by one

sin [for Adam is everyman]- and the one man, Jesus, who brought the verdict of being declared right

for many people who had committed many sins. The paradox is that ‗just‘ one sin lead to the

condemnation of mankind, but our many sins lead to us being declared right- by grace. The

reasoning here indirectly suggests that Christ was also ―a man‖ as Adam- and certainly not a god.

5:17 Death reigned… shall reign in life- again highlights the superabundance of the grace received.

By Adam‘s sin, we became reigned over by death; by Christ, we sinners, we who are like Adam, not

only become free from death and shall live eternally, but we shall ―reign‖, as rulers in God‘s future

Kingdom (Lk. 19:19; Rev. 5:10). Note the contrast so far in these verses is between Adam and

Christ, and between Adam‘s sin and… Christ. We expect the connection to be between Adam‘s sin

and Christ‘s righteousness and obedience. This is the connection made later, but for now, we simply

read of Christ as the counterpart to both Adam and Adam‘s sin. It wasn‘t so much one act of

obedience which countered Adam‘s one sin; rather was it a life lived, a character developed, a

person, rather than a single act of obedience, as perhaps implied by the legalism of Judaism,

whereby one sin could be cancelled out by an act of obedience. The reality however is that Adam‘s

one sin was no mere casual infringement which had no significant consequence- ‗just‘ one sin leads

to all the death and suffering which Adam‘s sin brought. Our sins are to be understood in the same

way. Adam must have held his head in his hands as he stood somewhere eastward in Eden, and

sobbed to the effect ―My God, what have I done…‖, and from tear filmed eyes looked out upon a

creation starting to buckle and wrinkle. If we accept Paul‘s point that Adam is everyman [5:12], that

whilst we suffer because of what he did, this is because we would have done the same if in his

shoes… then we will feel the same for our falls, our slips, our rebellions, our sins.

Abundance of grace- For the Macedonians ―the abundance of their joy… abounded unto the riches

of their liberality‖ (2 Cor. 8:2). Their joy for what the Lord had done for them, for the ―abundance‖

[s.w.] of His grace and giving to them (Rom. 5:17), led to their giving to the poor.

In Romans 5, Paul makes a seamless connection between the reign of God's grace now, and our

future reigning in the literal Kingdom of God to be established materially upon earth at the Lord's

return: Grace reigns unto eternal life, i.e. the result of the reign of grace now is eternal life in the

future (Rom. 5:21)... and thus "the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of

the righteousness in life will reign through the one, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17). Elsewhere, Paul

clearly understands the idea of future reigning as a reference to our ruling in the future Kingdom of

God. This is a very real and wonderful hope which we have, and is indeed part of the Gospel.

"Israel" means something like 'God rules' (Gen. 32:22-28); His people are those over whom He

rules. We therefore are under His Kingdom now, if we accept Christ as King over our lives.

Rom. 5:17,21 draws a parallel between Adam's sin and ours. His tragedy, his desperation, as he

looked at his body, at his wife, with new vision; as his wide eyes wandered in tragedy around the

garden: all who fall are in that position, eagerly reaching out to the clothing of the slain lamb.

5:18 This verse could be ended with an exclamation mark and be read as a summary, exclaimed in

joy and wonder, of the preceding argument.

153

Justification of life- could be a legal term concerning how a person condemned to death has

received ―life‖ through being declared right.

Perhaps we feel that our preaching somehow lacks a sense of power and compulsion of others. Try

explicitly telling them about the cross. The apostles recounted the fact of the cross and on this basis

appealed for people to be baptized into that death and resurrection. There is an impelling power, an

imperative, in the wonder and shame of it all. Joseph saw the Lord‘s dead body and was compelled

to offer for that body to be laid where his dead body should have laid. In essence, he lived out the

message of baptism. He wanted to identify his body with that of the Lord. He realized that the man

Christ Jesus was truly his representative. And so he wanted to identify with Him. And properly

presented, this will be the power of response to the preaching of the cross today. ―Through one act

of righteousness [the cross] the free gift came unto all men to justification of life" (Rom. 5:18)- yet

―all men" only receive that justification if they hear this good news and believe it. This is why we

must take the Gospel ―unto all men" (surely an allusion to the great commission)- so that, in that

sense, the wondrous cross of Christ will have been the more ‗worthwhile‘. Through our preaching,

yet more of those ―all men" who were potentially enabled to live for ever will indeed do so. This is

why the Acts record so frequently connects the preaching of the cross with men‘s belief. Negatively,

men do not believe if they reject the ―report" of the crucifixion (Jn. 12:38,39).

5:19 Made sinners- Gk. ‗to appoint, ordain‘. It‘s not that we as innocent people [which we are not

anyway] were turned into sinners because someone else sinned, far away and long ago. Rather were

―all men‖- and Paul uses this term to emphasize how Jew and Gentile are in the same position- put

into the category of Adam, of sinners, of guilty, of flesh. But the good news is that there can be a

category change- if we can be ―made sinners‖ we can likewise be made righteous.

One man‟s obedience- a reference to the crucifixion, or to a life of obedience? Significantly, Paul

writes in Romans of baptism as being ―obedience‖ (Rom. 1:5; 6:16,17; 15:18; 16:26, also Acts 6:7).

It‘s as if by obeying the command to die with Him by baptism into His death, we are associating

with His actual obedience to death in the cross. The Lord spoke of having been given a specific

―command‖ by the Father to die on the cross (Jn. 10:18), which would encourage us to interpret His

―obedience‖ here as His obedience to death on the cross.

Adam's sin of commission (i.e. eating the fruit) may well have been a result of his sins of omitting

to go forth out of the centre of the garden and multiply. By one man's inattention (Rom. 5:19 Gk.)

sin came into the world.

5:20 entered- s.w. only Gal. 2:4, where the Judaizers ‗sneaked in‘ to the church. Why exactly Paul

uses such a word isn‘t altogether clear to me, nor to any of the many expositors I‘ve read.

That the offence may abound- in the context, ―the offence‖ [singular] refers to the specific sin of

Adam- ―the offence of the one man‖ (5:18). The Law was intended on one hand to bring life (Rom.

7:10); it was ―holy, just and good‖. But the effect of it in practice was to accentuate sin, and this

result of human failure was also somehow under the overall hand of God. He on the one hand

cannot be held guilty of leading men into sin by creating the concept of Divine law; for that Law

which He gave was ordained to bring life. Yet He worked with and through human weakness, so

that in the bigger picture, the result was that the Law convicted men of their sin so that God‘s grace

could superabound, abound yet more than sin abounded. God uses sin, and doesn‘t just turn away

from human failure in disgust; and in this we see a huge lesson for ourselves, we who are

confronted on all sides by serious human failure.

Paul knew the ‗abounding‘ aspect of the Father, when he wrote of how God does exceeding

abundantly above all we ask or think (Eph. 3:20). How many times have we found that we prayed

for one thing, and God gave us something so very much better? I see a kind of similarity with the

way that God brought in the Law ―that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace

did abound more exceedingly‖ (Rom. 5:20). God set up a situation in order that in due time, He

154

could lavish His grace the more. One almost wonders whether this is one of the reasons why God

allowed the whole concept of sin to exist at all. After all, the God of boundless possibilities surely

had ways to achieve His ends without having to allow a concept like sin in the first place. Seeing

there is no personal Satan, the intellectual origin of the concept of sin surely lies with God. And

perhaps He chose this simply as a way of being better able to express His amazing grace and love to

sinners. Having lambasted Israel for their sins and described in detail their coming judgment, God

then makes a strange comment, apparently out of context with what He has just been saying: ―And

therefore will Yahweh wait, that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will he be exalted, that

he may have mercy upon you: for Yahweh is a God of justice; blessed are all they that wait for him‖

(Is. 30:18). God appears to be saying that He delays His actions, that He brings judgment, that He

sets Himself so far above us- just so that He can get to show yet more mercy to us. Perhaps Joseph

was manifesting God in the way he worked out that slow and detailed scheme of dealing with his

sinful brethren... it has always seemed to me that he drew out the process just so that he could lead

up to a climax of pouring out his maximum grace to them. Whilst the way seems long, ―blessed are

all they that wait for him‖. God is even spoken of as concluding (Gk. ‗shutting up the eyes‘) of

Israel in the sin of unbelief, ―that he might have mercy‖ upon both them and the Gentiles (Rom.

11:32).

5:21 Sin has reigned unto death- or, Gk., in death. We have changed masters and also changed our

Kings. Our status has changed, but we must still try to live out that status change in practice- hence

―let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it‖ (Rom. 6:12). Grace reigns

as King right now, in that Christ reigns- and thereby we are right now in the sphere of His Kingdom.

So might grace reign through righteousness- in that God‘s grace operates through the ‗mechanism‘

of God and Christ‘s righteousness being counted to us, so that we are counted as righteous, justified.

And this comes to its ultimate term in physical, literal terms in our being given eternal life at the

final judgment.

Grace, and the forgiveness it brings, reigns as a King (Rom. 5:21), in the sense that the real belief

that by grace we are and will be saved, will bring forth a changed life (Tit. 2:11,12). The wonder of

grace will mean that our lives become focused upon Jesus, the one who enabled that grace. Grace

will be the leading and guiding principle in our lives, comprised as they are of a long string of

thoughts and actions. And as with every truly focused life, literally all other things become therefore

and thereby of secondary value. The pathway of persistent, focused prayer, the power of the hope of

glory in the Kingdom, regular repentance… day by day our desires are redirected towards the things

of God.

You cannot have abstract diabolism; the evil desires that are in a man‘s heart cannot exist separately

from a man; therefore ‗the Devil‘ is personified. Sin is often personified as a ruler (e.g. Rom. 5:21;

6:6,17; 7:13–14). It is understandable, therefore, that the ‗Devil‘ is also personified, seeing that ‗the

Devil‘ also refers to sin. In the same way, Paul speaks of us having two beings, as it were, within

our flesh (Rom. 7:15–21): the man of the flesh, ‗the Devil‘, fights with the man of the spirit. Yet it

is evident that there are not two literal, personal beings fighting within us.

Paul makes a seamless connection between the reign of God's grace now, and our future reigning in

the literal Kingdom of God to be established materially upon earth at the Lord's return: Grace reigns

unto eternal life, i.e. the result of the reign of grace now is eternal life in the future (Rom. 5:21)...

and thus "the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in

[this] life will reign through the one, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17). The idea is that if grace reigns in

our lives, then we will reign in the future Kingdom.

The Implications Of Baptism

One of the reasons for baptism is perhaps so that we realize that we can't just drift into relationship

with God; there must be a concrete point at which we decide for Him and His Son. The whole thing

155

is so counter-instinctive, as Naaman discovered- to get wet, with all the awkwardness of it being so

public, to be exposed and vulnerable to the view of others, to be dipped under water by another

person... it's not exactly painless and effortless. Commonly enough, the New Testament speaks of

baptism as a calling upon the Name of the Lord. This must be understood against its Hebrew

background- qara' beshem Yahweh, which originally referred to approaching God in sacrifice (Gen.

12:7,8; Ps. 116:4,17). God placed His Name upon places in order to make them suitable places for

sacrifice to be offered to Him (Dt. 12:4-7,21; Jer. 7:12). Baptism was thus seen as a sacrificial

commitment to Yahweh in solemn covenant.

Further, in the first century, such baptisms were required of Gentiles who wished to become

proselyte Jews and thus enter "Israel". For orthodox Jews to submit to baptism demanded a lot- for

it implied they were not by birth part of the true Israel as they had once proudly thought. The Jews

thought of Israel in the very terms which Paul applies to Jesus: "We Thy people whom Thou hast

honoured and hast called the Firstborn and Only-Begotten, Near and Beloved One" (1). The New

Testament uses these titles to describe the Lord Jesus Christ- and we must be baptized into Him in

order to be in His Name and titles. The Lord Jesus was thus portrayed as Israel idealized and

personified, all that Israel the suffering servant should have been; thus only by baptism into Christ

of Jew and Gentile could they become part of the true seed of Abraham, the Israel of God (Gal.

3:27-29). The act of baptism into Christ is no less radical for us in our contexts today than it was for

first century Jews. All we once mentally held dear, we have to give up.

Our Relationship With God

Being baptized into the Name has quite some implications. In Hebrew thought, you called your

name upon that which was your personal property- hence a wife took on the name of her husband

because he placed it upon her. By baptism into the Name of the Father and His Son, we become

their personal property, their woman, upon whom they have unique claims and obligations. Baptism

in this sense is a kind of marriage contract with none less than the God of the universe. We can't

drift into relationship with God; God has designed the whole experience of baptism so that we once

and for all make a choice, to be with Him and not this world, to be in Christ and covered in Him,

rather than wandering in the rags of our own righteousness and occasional half-hearted stabs at real

spirituality.

Motivation To Powerful Preaching

There is no doubt that the cross and baptism into that death was central to the preaching message of

the early brethren. According to the Bible, baptism is essential to salvation; yet we can't draw hoops

around God and limit His salvation ultimately. The completeness and reality of the redemption

achieved is expressed in Hebrews with a sense of finality, and we ought to not let that slip from our

presentation of the Gospel either. There in the cross, the justice and mercy of God are brought

together in the ultimate way. There in the cross is the appeal. Some of the early missionaries

reported how they could never get any response to their message until they explained the cross; and

so, with our true doctrinal understanding of it, it is my belief that the cross is what has the power of

conversion. A man cannot face it and not have a deep impression of the absoluteness of the issues

involved in faith and unbelief, in choosing to accept or reject the work of the struggling, sweating,

gasping Man who hung on the stake. It truly is a question of believe or perish. Baptism into that

death and resurrection is essential for salvation. Of course we must not bully or intimidate people

into faith, but on the other hand, a preaching of the cross cannot help but have something

compulsive and urgent and passionate about it. For we appeal to men on God's behalf to accept the

work of the cross as efficacious for them. In this sense baptism is essential to salvation from our

perspective. It can be that much of our preaching somehow fails in urgency and entreaty. We seem

to be in places too expository, or too attractive with the peripherals, seeking to please men... or be

offering good advice, very good advice indeed, background Bible knowledge, how to read the Bible

effectively... .all of which may be all well and good, but we should be preaching good news, not

156

good advice. The message of the cross is of a grace and real salvation which is almost too good to

believe. It isn't Bible background or archaeology or potshots at interpreting Bible prophecy. It is the

Man who had our nature hanging there perfect, full of love, a light in this dark world... and as far as

we perceive the wonder of it all, as far as this breaks in upon us, so far we will hold it forth to this

world. If we think there could be other paths to salvation, then we wouldn't preach Christ as we do.

The zeal of the early brethren to witness for Him was because, as they explained, there is no other

name under Heaven whereby we may be saved. People do not drift into covenant relationship with

God; they have to consciously chose, and God has instituted baptism as a means to that end; to force

a man or woman to a conscious decision and crossing of boundaries. And this is why we preach

towards baptism, with an eye on future conversion, knowing that baptism is essential to salvation.

Lk. 3:12 records how there "came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what

shall we do?". There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must do

something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God's gracious

forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be

passive to this and do nothing about it.

Notes

(1) The Apocalypse Of Ezra 6.55-58 (London: S.P.C.K., 1917 ed.) p. 47.

6:1 Shall we continue in sin…?- Paul says he had been slanderously accused of teaching this (Rom.

3:8). He‘s here not only answering that false charge, but more positively, analyzing what our

response should be to the great grace in which we now stand. In doing so, he expounds in more

detail how we come to that position of being ―in Christ‖, what ―the obedience of faith‖ means in

practice. And he‘s quite clear that this faith in Christ is expressed in the act of baptism.

Paul didn't just decide to write about baptism in Romans 6; the classic exposition of baptism which

we find there is within a context. And it's not an appeal for people to be baptized- it's written to

baptized believers, appealing for them to live out in practice the "in Christ" status which they had

been given as a result of their baptisms. If we really feel the result of our baptism, we will not

"continue in sin". Martin Luther used to overcome temptation by taking a chalk and writing

baptizatus sum- 'I am baptized'. And therefore we simply cannot continue in servitude to sin. As

Karl Barth put it in his needle-sharp analysis of baptism's implications: "Baptism recalls me to the

service of witness, since it recalls me to daily repentance" [Karl Barth, Dogmatics In Outline

(London: S.C.M., 1972 ed.) p. 151.]. It should be noted that allusions to baptism in Paul's letters are

in passages where Paul is trying to correct misunderstandings about unity and way of life (Rom. 6;

8:12-17; Gal. 3:27-4:6; 1 Cor. 1-4, 12). The early brethren had a tendency to forget the implications

of baptism. And so it is with us all today. Entering the body of Christ by baptism means that our

sins are in a sense against our own brethren, our spiritual body, as well as against the Lord

personally. Like the prodigal, we realize we sin against Heaven and men.

6:2 live therein- the idea is of living in the sphere of sin, identifying ourselves with being ―in Adam‖

rather than the sphere of ―in Christ‖. Romans 6 is talking about being in one of two spheres- in the

flesh, and in the Spirit; in Adam, or in Christ; continuing in condemnation, or rejoicing in our

justified status in Christ. It is actually impossible for us to ‗live in sin‘ for a moment, because we are

no longer ―in‖ that sphere or position.

Baptism is a change of masters- but we are still bondslaves, not of sin, but of God. The implications

of this figure may not be immediately apparent to the modern mind. We are totally committed to the

Master- this is who we are, bondslaves. In Gen. 44:9, being dead is paralleled with being a slave;

and there appears a parallel between being a bondslave and dying in Gen. 44:9,17. Indeed, Romans

6 draws the same parallel- death to sin is part of being a slave of Christ. The very fact we are

baptized means we should not continue in sin, seeing we are dead to it (Rom. 6:2). This is one of the

most basic implications of a first principle which we live in ignorance of most of our days.

157

6:3 Know you not…? – a common appeal of Paul‘s in his letters (Rom. 7:1; 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1;

1 Thess. 4:13). His earnest desire was that his readership would appreciate the real import of what

they knew in theory.

Galatians was one of Paul‘s earlier letters. In it, he speaks of his own baptism: ―I have been

crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live‖ (Gal. 2:19-21). Years later he writes to the Romans

about their baptisms, in exactly the same language: ―All of us who have been baptized… our old

self was crucified with him… the life he lives he lives to God‖ (Rom. 6:1-10). He clearly seeks to

forge an identity between his readers and himself; their baptisms were [and are] as radical as his in

their import. Note how in many of his letters, especially Galatians and Corinthians, he switches so

easily between ―you‖ and ―we‖, as if to drive home the fact that there was to be no perception of

distance between him the writer and us the readers.

6:4 by baptism- Gk. dia baptism. It is through baptism, on account of it, that we are ―in Christ‖ and

associated with the saving death of the Lord Jesus. This is how, mechanically, as it were, we

become ―in Christ‖. The use of dia here demonstrates the colossal importance of baptism.

―Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death... knowing this, that our old man is

crucified with him" (Rom 6:4,6). Every time someone is baptized, the Lord as it were goes through

His death for them again. And yet baptism is an ongoing process, of dying daily. We are in Christ,

connected every moment with the life and living out of His cross. We are dying with Him, our old

man is crucified with Him because His death is an ongoing one. ―It is Christ that died... Who shall

separate us from the love of Christ?... As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we

are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Rom 8:34-36). According to Isaiah 53, He on the cross

was the sheep for the slaughter; but all in Him are all day long counted as sharing His death, as we

live out the same self-control, the same spirit of love and self-giving for others, regardless of their

response...

Raised… by the glory of the Father- doesn‘t mean that some bright light as it were hauled the body

of Jesus out of the grave. The glory of God is essentially His character and attributes; when Moses

asked to see God‘s glory, He heard the essential character of God proclaimed. Christ was raised

from the dead dia , for the sake of, this glory. He perfectly revealed it in a life and personality which

was totally like God‘s, omitting no aspect of righteousness and not committing any sin. He gave His

life for us, to become our full representative; and therefore it was appropriate that He be raised

again, for the wages of sin is death, but He had done no sin. His same perfection is counted to us, if

we believe in Him and into Him through ―the obedience of faith‖ in baptism. And it is on this basis

that we too shall rise again. Paul mentions this aspect of the Lord‘s resurrection to explain to us

something more about how and why immersion into His death and resurrection can lead to our

resurrection. We must consider that His resurrection is in fact going to be ours exactly because His

righteousness is counted to us, and therefore dia that, for the sake of it, we took shall be raised to

life eternal.

The theory of Him only ‗acting out‘ reaches its nadir when we come- as each Christian must- to

personally contemplate the meaning of the dead body of Jesus. That lifeless corpse, in contrast with

the immortal God who cannot die, was surely the ultimate testament to Christ‘s total humanity. God

did not die for three days. The Lord Jesus did. His subsequent resurrection doesn‘t in any way

detract from the fact that He was really dead for three days. Indeed, His resurrection would also

have been a cheap sham if He had actually not been really dead, with all that death means. We too,

in our natural fear of death (cp. Heb. 2:15), come to that dead body and wish to identify ourselves

with it, so that we might share in His resurrection. Baptism is a baptism into His death (Rom. 6:3-5).

It‘s more than some act of vague identification with the dead and resurrected Jesus. We are ―buried

with him‖, literally ‗co-buried‘ (Gk. syn-thaptein) with Him, inserted into His death, sharing the

same grave. If His death was not really death, then baptism loses its meaning, and we are left still

searching for another Saviour with whom we can identify in order to rise out of the grave. Jesus

158

Himself was baptized in order to emphasize our identity with Him: ―Now when all the people were

baptized, and Jesus also had been baptized…‖ (Lk. 3:21).

Our experience of grace means ―that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of

the letter‖ (Rom. 7:6). We don‘t have to serve God in the sense that He grants us salvation by pure

grace, not by works. The blessing of the Lord has nothing added to it by human toil (Prov. 10:22

RVmg.). But just because we don‘t have to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it doesn‘t force

us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do perhaps the same

things with an ever fresh spirit. The pure wonder of it all needs to be felt- that for nothing but pure

faith the Lord will grant us eternal redemption for the sake of the Lord‘s death and resurrection.

Which is why Rom. 6:4 says that because of this, and our appropriation of it in baptism, we

therefore live in newness of life, a quality of life that is ever new. Through His death, a new and

living way is opened (Heb. 10:20). We share the ever fresh life which the Lord lived from His

resurrection. It does us good to try to imagine that scene- the Son of God, coming out of the grave at

daybreak. He would have seen the lights of Jerusalem shimmering away in the distance, a few kms.

away, as everyone woke up and went back to work, the first day after the long holiday. Getting the

children ready, caring for the animals… it was back to the same old scene. But as they did so, the

Son of God was rising to newness of life, standing alone in the fresh morning air, with a life that

was ever new, with a joy and dynamism that was to know no end… His feelings are beyond us, but

all the same, distorted by our nature, by our spiritual dysfunction, into our lives His life breaks

through.

6:5 planted together- the image appears to be of two seeds growing up together out of the ground.

To parallel Christ with us in this way is arresting; that we, so far behind Him, our Master, King and

hero- should actually be seeds and tender plants growing up next to Him. The suggestion could be

that Christ is still growing, His life is a newness of life, an ever fresh experience, a growth, which

goes on eternally; and we are growing together with Him. And that growth has started even now.

The initial planting under the earth is symbolized by going under the water of baptism.

likeness of his death- the reference could be to baptism itself as the likeness of His death. But

perhaps the idea more essentially is that our death to sin is a copy, a ―likeness‖, of Christ‘s death to

sin (6:10). It‘s an elevating thought- that we are seeking to copy His death in our daily death to sin.

Not only through our rejecting of temptation, but our recognition that we are in a state of being dead

to sin and its demands, because we are counted right before God by our faith in His grace.

―Likeness‖ is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any

god, let alone Yahweh (Ex. 20:4; Dt. 4:16-25; Ps. 106:20; Is. 40:18,19). The reason for this

prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and

we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of

our human personality and character. In this we as it were die with Christ (6:8)- not just in the dirt

and heat of battling and resisting temptation to sin, but in that we have identified ourselves with

Him there, we are in the sphere of Christ rather than Adam. What we do with our thoughts, our

spare time, what our aims and ambitions are in life, where our heart is- is within the Christ sphere

rather than the Adam sphere, the spirit rather than the flesh. We are in the ―likeness‖ of Christ‘s

death by baptism, and He is in the ―likeness of [our] sinful flesh‖ (Rom. 8:3)- thereby showing the

mutuality between Him and us, and how representation and response to it is two-way. He is like us,

and we therefore seek to become like Him.

God forbid that for us, the cross should be a mere art form that we admire from afar. We are to be

intimately connected with the spirit of the Lord as He hung there. In baptism, we are to be

‗incorporated with him in a death like his‘ (Rom. 6:5). The Greek word symphytoi speaks of a

symphony, in which we and the Lord in His time of dying are united together. Likewise Rom. 8:29

and Phil. 3:21 speak of being ‗fused into the mould of his death‘. He, as He was there, is to be our

mould. The strange ability of the cross to elicit powerful response in practice is one way in which

159

the blood of Christ sanctifies us. His sacrifice not only brings forgiveness for past sins, it is the

inspiration to a sanctified future life.

6:6 knowing this- see on Rom. 6:3. As in 6:9, ―knowing‖ these things means more than factual

knowledge; Paul is driving home the practical implications.

old man- the contrast between the old man and the new man is similar to that which Paul draws in 1

Cor. 15:45 between the ―first man‖, Adam, and the ―last‖ man, Christ. Therefore I suggest that the

―old man‖ here is a reference to our status in Adam; by baptism we pass from that status to that of

the ―new man‖, Christ. Eph. 4:22-24 exhorts baptized believers to put off the old man and put on the

new man- i.e. to live out in practice the change in status which occurred in baptism. ―The new man‖

comprises Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:15; Col. 3:10,11)- connecting with how Gal. 3:27-29 explains

that baptism into Christ likewise gives us a status of ―in Christ‖ which thereby obviates any

difference between Jew and Gentile. If ―the old man‖ refers to our status in Adam which has now

ended, been crucified, then we need no longer be phased by the fact that no baptized believer

manages to totally avoid sinning; none of us have put to death the old manner of life in totality. All

our days we seek to respond to the change of status which has occurred, living appropriate to that

change.

crucified with Christ- the very pinnacle of the Lord‘s achievement, which we tend to gape at from

an awed distance reflecting that ‗I would not, could not, possibly, have done that‘, is counted to us

insofar as we are in Christ. ―Is crucified‖ is a translation which misses the point- the Greek speaks

of this as a one time act which we did with Christ, rather than any ongoing identity with the

crucifixion through our sufferings over the course of our life. That one time point of identity was

surely baptism, when we were counted as in Christ, changed status from Adam to Christ, and His

crucifixion was counted to us as if we had died there. This interpretation is in context with Paul‘s

argument in Romans; he‘s not merely saying that our sufferings in fighting sin bring us identity with

Christ‘s crucifixion, or that thereby we know something of the spirit of the crucified Christ. For we

are so, so far behind Him. And our paultry efforts fall far short, and certainly would not entitle us to

a resurrection. By our being counted as dead, even crucified, with Christ, because we are seen as

―in‖ Him, we will be thereby also resurrected with Him in that we will share in His resurrection life

just as we were identified with His death. Indeed, all that is true of Him becomes true of us. We died

with Him (6:8), were crucified with Him (6:6), buried with Him (6:4), raised with Him (Col. 2:12;

3:1); are seated with Him in Heaven (Eph. 2:16), are simply ―with‖ Christ in life today (Rom.

8:17,29), and so will eternally be ―with the Lord‖ Jesus (1 Thess. 4:17).

Body of sin… destroyed- at the day of judgment? Paul speaks of how the life / living of Jesus is now

manifested in our ―mortal flesh‖ (2 Cor. 4:11). So we still have ―mortal flesh‖ now. It will only

literally be no more at the Lord‘s return. This could require the next clause to be translated ―that

from then onwards [i.e. after the day of judgment] we shall no longer serve sin‖. However, this

phrase could be returning back to this life- with the idea being that because at the day of judgment

our body of sin will be destroyed, and this was guaranteed by our baptism into Christ, we therefore

shouldn‘t serve sin, in having sin as our master. We are no longer in that sphere, under that

domination- but instead under the domination of Christ and within His sphere. Note the difference

between the ―old man‖ being crucified and the ―body of sin‖ being therefore, henceforth, destroyed.

The old way of life [which is how Paul uses ―the old man‖ in Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9] is dead, we have

changed status, living as ―the new man‖, Christ. This will come to its physical manifestation in the

destruction of our physical body and the gift of the new body at the day of judgment.

6:7 He that is dead is freed from sin- is virtually quoting Rabbinic writings. However in the Talmud

there is the statement that ―when a man is dead he is freed from keeping the law‖ (B. Shabbat, 151

B). Paul provocatively replaces ―law‖ with ―sin‖. Not that God‘s law is sinful in itself, but he has

been emphasizing that the Law is associated with sin because it as it were magnifies sin and leads to

the conscious crossing over of a Divine line which results in sin being imputed to man. However,

160

―freed‖ here translates the usual word for ―justified‖ or acquitted. A slave can no longer serve a

master after the death of the slave. And this is how God counts us.

6:8 If we be dead- Gk. ‗if we died‘, in baptism into Christ‘s death. Paul is writing to baptized

believers; his thought is therefore ‗Since we died with Him‘.

We believe that we shall also live with Him- yet the fact someone has been baptized doesn‘t

necessarily mean that they do at this point believe that they will live with Christ. Paul surely means

that if we really accept the reality of what happened at baptism, this must influence our faith now-

that we shall therefore live with Him eternally in the future, and we therefore shall live with Him

and in Him, within the sphere of His life, right now. The logic here is powerful, intense, and cutting.

It can‘t be squirmed out of. If we really were baptized into His death- then we [almost] have to

believe that we will also live with Him, because He didn‘t stay dead but rose to life. The power of

baptism, therefore, is that it reminds us subsequently in our lives of the simple fact that therefore, as

Christ died and lives, so I too ―shall‖, I really will, ―live with Him‖.

6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead…- ―we believe that we shall live with Him‖

(6:8) because we know that Christ was raised from the dead. To believe that He rose from the dead

is therefore no painless intellectual matter. If He rose, and if I really died with Him, then I shall for

sure live with Him. Because He is me and I am Him; He in me and I in Him. This is what Paul is

saying, amidst our own doubts and fears about our moral failures trying to shout him down.

No more dominion- if death and sin have no more dominion over Christ, they have no dominion

over us, and therefore we are to live as if sin has no dominion over us (6:14).

6:10 Died unto sin once- this apparently obvious fact is added to develop the argument that because

He totally isn‘t under the power of sin and death any more, we who are in Him are likewise free

from it, totally and utterly- by status. And seeing His death isn‘t ongoing, our freedom from sin

should likewise be ongoing.

Lives unto God- the fact that even now, the Son of God lives ―unto God‖, to His glory, for His sake,

unto Him… is a sure proof that He isn‘t ―God‖ in any Trinitarian sense. But just as His life is

constantly and in every dimension ―for God‖, so we also should be living unto God now (6:11)- not

a hobby, a part time religion, but a devotion to His sphere in every aspect of our existence.

The life that He lived and now lives, and the death that He died, become ours (Rom. 6:10 RV). We

identified with that life, that death, at baptism. But it‘s an ongoing thing. We live in newness of life.

The life in Christ is not a stagnant pond, but rather living water, spring water, bubbling fresh from

the spring. The Lord Jesus died and rose as our representative. Therefore we live out His life, His

death, His rising again to new life; and so as we sing, ―into my life your power breaks through,

living Lord‖. And this is what we give out to others- for ―he that believeth in me, out of his

innermost being shall flow rivers of springing water‖ for others (Jn. 4:10; 7:38). We can experience

the newness of life of Christ right now. His life is now made manifest in our mortal flesh (2 Cor.

4:11), insofar as we seek to live our lives governed by the golden rule: ‗What would Jesus do…?‘.

The life that He had and now lives is the essence of the Kingdom life.

Throughout the NT, there is a clear link between the preaching of the cross, and men and women

being converted. There is a power of conversion in the image and message of Christ crucified as our

representative. Man cannot remain passive before this. Baptism is an appropriation of His death and

resurrection to ourselves. This is why the response to the preaching of the cross in the 1st century

was baptism. And the response doesn't stop there; it continues, in the living of the life of the risen

Jesus in our lives after baptism: "For the death that he died, he died unto sin… the life that he liveth,

he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to dead unto sin but alive unto God [because

you are] in Christ [by baptism into Him]" (Rom. 6:10,11 RV). The death Christ died for us, the life

He lives, are all imperatives to us now.

161

6:11- see on Rom. 2:26; 6:10.

Reckon you also yourselves – uses the common Greek word for ―impute‖. As God imputes Christ‘s

righteousness to us, we are to count ourselves, perceive ourselves, feel ourselves, as really like that.

Hence the emphasis- ―you also yourselves‖, we, us, are to see ourselves as God sees us, rather than

merely accepting that He wishes to see us as He choses to see us. His opinion of us in the ultimate

reality for us- and we are to share that view.

Paul‘s emphasis is not so much that baptized believers will be resurrected when Christ returns, true

as this is and important within his overall argument; but rather that having been raised with Christ,

the new resurrection life of Jesus breaks through into our lives right now. Elsewhere Paul likewise

talks of our participating in glory right now (2 Cor. 3:16), whereas the ultimate glory is yet to come

and the transformation of our bodies (Phil. 3:21).

6:12 Let not sin reign - We are to live out in practice the status we have in Christ. ―Sin shall not

reign over you‖ (6:14); but we must therefore make an effort to not let sin reign. Likewise in Rom.

8:9,12: ―You are not in the flesh… do not live according to the flesh‖.

Mortal body- having said that ―the body of sin‖ is to be destroyed (6:6) and that we are to live in the

sphere of Christ rather than Adam, we have changed masters and should live and feel like that, Paul

reminds us that our body is still mortal- reminding us that we are still awaiting the change of body

which is to come at the final judgment when Christ returns.

Lusts thereof- there are within the human body the natural passions / desires to sin, ―the passion of

the flesh‖ (Gal. 5:16). They aren‘t sinful in themselves- for the Lord Jesus was sinless and yet had

our same ―mortal body‖. But the fact they are the source of sin and are within our bodies explains

why there is such a strong connection between sin and our bodies, leading to expressions such as

―the body of sin‖ (6:6) and ―sinful flesh‖ (8:3). But this isn‘t to say that the body is itself sinful or

that it‘s somehow a sin to be human.

6:13 Instruments- s.w. armour, weapon (Jn. 18:3; 2 Cor. 6:7; 10:4). We are called to fight, to serve

in the army- of either sin or Christ. No passivity or wavering between the positions is therefore

possible. We have changed sides. See on 6:23.

Yield yourselves- Gk. ‗present yourselves‘. The aorist tense could suggest a one time presenting of

ourselves- at baptism? And if we didn‘t appreciate at the time of our baptism that this is what we

were doing, we can do it now. Maybe that explains the otherwise difficult to translate tense usage

here.

6:14- see on Rom. 6:12.

Shall not have dominion- yet we still sin. But Paul is again talking about our changed status- sin is

not now our Lord, our master; instead, Jesus is. Kurieuo (―have dominion‖) is clearly intended to

contrast with Kurios, the usual Greek word translated ―Lord‖ with reference to the Lord Jesus. See

on Rom. 6:9. The Lord Jesus rose again so that He might be our Lord, s.w. ―dominion‖, over us His

people (Rom. 14:9). ―Shall not‖ can be translated as ―Sin will not have dominion‖ (ESV)- so that

it‘s not a demand that we stop allowing sin to dominate, but rather an exaltation that the ―sin‖

sphere of things will not in the end have dominion in our lives, because we are in Christ.

For you are not under the Law- would‘ve been more radical to Jewish readers and listeners than we

may appreciate; for Judaism‘s big issue has always been that the Law is required in order to curb or

restrain sin, and that societies without the Law are more sinful than those influenced by it. But here

Paul is saying that if we forget about the Jewish Law and live as believers justified by pure grace,

this will have more practical power in delivering a man from sin‘s dominion than any attempt at

obedience to a legal code. ―Under‖ was appropriate to slaves ‗under‘ a master. We are ‗under‘ grace

as our master rather than law. The strength of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15:56); if the law isn‘t our

master, then sin likewise isn‘t our master, and therefore sin will not ultimately dominate us.

162

6:15 See notes on ―under…‖ at 6:14. If we are under grace rather than law, then we will not be

counted by God as sinning. We declared right, justified. Paul may mean there that we are not

counted as continual sinners [even though we believers do keep on sinning, sadly], because we are

under grace as a master rather than law. Or he may mean that those truly under grace don‘t keep on

sinning, because the wonder of their position inspires them not to. This contrasts sharply with the

Judaistic view that it is the Law which curbs sin. Paul is arguing the very opposite: that leaving the

sphere of Law and coming under grace will actually curb sin.

6:16 Yield… to obey- see on 6:13. The obedience would seem to be a one time obedience- in

baptism- an obedience to a form of doctrine delivered to them (6:17). ―The obedience of faith‖

which Paul spoke of in Rom. 1:5 he now interprets as baptism. Note the parallel between faith and

obedience in Rom. 10:16.

Paul expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ. There's an example in

Rom. 6:16: " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are...

whether of sin... or of obedience?". This is alluding to Mt. 6:24 concerning not serving two masters.

Paul is surely saying: 'Come on, this is Matthew 6, you can't serve two masters! That principle

ought to be firmly lodged in your heart!'. In terms of Paul‘s argument about which status or sphere

we are in, his point is simple: you can only be in one sphere or the other, either under law or grace,

sin or obedience. It‘s therefore impossible to continue sinning. in God‘s view [and it‘s His view of

the matter which is the only thing worth anything]- because we are either justified in Christ, or not

justified and condemned sinners. The tree brings forth either good or bad fruit (Mt. 7:18)- in that we

are ―in‖ either the good tree or the bad one. Paul deploys this argument to answer the objection that

we may as well continue sinning- he‘s saying not merely that we ought not to do that, but rather that

ultimately we cannot do that, because we are either under sin or under obedience. Notice that he

personifies ―obedience‖ as a slave owner, to whom we now belong. The two slave masters in view

here are called ―sin‖ and ―obedience‖. We are clearly to identify ―obedience‖ with the Lord Jesus.

And Paul has just written about the singular and spectacular ―obedience‖ of Jesus in dying for us on

the cross (see on Rom. 5:19). This act made Jesus to be Lord and Master for us. We are obedient to

His obedience, as it were. Which is the whole idea of baptism- we are buried together with Him, we

die with Him, His death becomes ours, and thus His obedience unto death is ours.

Obedience unto righteousness- the end result of our serving ―obedience‖, i.e. the Lord Jesus, is

righteousness. But Paul‘s argument has been that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and

righteousness has to be imputed to us. The end result of being under ―obedience‖, in Christ, is that

righteousness is imputed to us, we are declared righteous, justified, as we stand before the final

judgment. Lack of attention to Paul‘s argument and the meaning attached to the terms being used in

Romans can lead the casual reader of this verse to think that by acts of obedience we become

righteous- and that is the very opposite of what Paul has been teaching all along.

6:17 That form of teaching to which you were handed over- must be interpreted in the context of

Paul‘s insistent theme that we have changed masters, changed status. ―Handed over‖ could be an

allusion to handing over a slave from one master to another- the form of teaching would therefore

refer to the form or mould to which we are exposed under our new master, the Lord Jesus. In this

case it would refer to post baptismal rather than pre baptismal teaching. Alternatively he may be

referring to the fact that the teaching or doctrine of Christ had been delivered or handed over to

them from Christ Himself (s.w. 1 Cor. 11:2,13; 15:3). However, it should be noted that Paul says

that the baptized believer is handed over to the doctrine / teaching of Christ- and not the teaching to

the believer. Perhaps the contrast is with Rom. 2:20, where we read of the ―form of knowledge and

of truth in the law [of Moses]‖. We have been handed over to the form or mould of teaching which

is in Christ rather than Moses.

163

Paul‘s writing that he thanks God for their change of status was maybe to encourage his readers to

understand the degree to which in very deed they had changed status- because they seemed to doubt

it, as we too tend to.

We are frequently spoken of as being slaves of God. At baptism, we changed masters (Rom. 6). Yet

the implications of being a bond-slave are tremendous. We are not our own. We have been bought

with a price. And we cannot serve two masters. There‘s a powerful, powerful logic here. We are

either slaves of ourselves, or slaves of God. Ultimate freedom to do ‗what we want‘ is actually not

possible. So we may as well take the path of slavery to the Father and Son. Unless we firmly accept

this, life will become motion without meaning, activity without direction, events without reason.

The doctrines we believed at baptism were a 'mould of doctrine' (Rom. 6:17 Gk.)- they define the

person we turn into. The calling of the Gospel is ongoing- it's not that we hear the call, respond to it,

and the call in that sense ceases. See on 2 Tim. 3:5.

There is a set of doctrines which Eph. 4:4-6 calls "the one faith"; which Rom. 6:17 calls "that form

of doctrine" to be believed before baptism; "the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13).

―Repent ye and believe the Gospel" (Mk. 1:15) might seem to be in the wrong order- for surely

belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does. But the point is, life after conversion

is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place.

Thus Rom. 6 teaches that we were once servants of sin... and we expect the sentence to conclude:

'But now you are servants of righteousness'. But it doesn't. We were once servants of sin but now we

have obeyed the form of doctrine delivered to us... and are therefore servants of righteousness. The

service of righteousness is a result of accepting "that form of doctrine", perhaps referring to an early

catechism or statement of faith taught to baptismal candidates, summarizing the power of the

Gospel.

―Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (Jn. 8:34), but those in Christ are counted as not

being the servants of sin, but of Christ (Rom. 6:17). The connection with Jn. 8:34 makes this

tantamount to saying that they are reckoned as not committing sin.

6:17,18- An allusion to 1 Sam. 17:8,9?

6:18 Made free from sin- would imply a manumission, a payment of a price by some gracious

person to free a person from slavery. Note that the image isn‘t of one slave master buying a slave

from another master. It‘s of genuine freedom being bought for the slave, by grace. But ―being then

made free‖, because of this, the freed slave decides to become a slave of the gracious Saviour who

paid for their release. Being a slave of Christ is therefore described in 6:19 as a freewill yielding of

our bodies, every part of them, to His service. 1 Enoch 5:7,8 and other Jewish writings spoke of

‗freedom from sin‘ coming in the Messianic Kingdom and the destruction of Satan; but Paul applies

that phrase to the experience of the Christian believer now - see on 1 Cor. 10:11. [J. Milik, The

Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) pp. 248-259.

The same phrase occurs with the same meaning in the Testament of Levi 14.1.]

You became- the change of status is so great that there can be no real question about who in practice

we should serve. By status we are the servants of righteousness- but that is not to say that we don‘t

at times in our humanity serve sin in practice. We have yet to become in practice who we are in

status.

6:19 The infirmity of your flesh- in Paul‘s case, being all things to all men meant that at times He

sacrificed highest principle in order to get through to men; he didn‘t just baldly state doctrinal truth

and leave his hearers with the problem of whether to accept it. He really sought to persuade men. He

magnified his ministry of preaching to the Gentiles, he emphasized the possibility of Gentile

salvation, ―If by any means I may provoke to emulation [‗incite to rivalry‘] them which are my flesh

[the Jews], and might save some of them‖ (Rom. 11:13,14). This hardly seems a very appropriate

164

method, under the spotlight of highest principle. But it was a method Paul used. Likewise he

badgers the Corinthians into giving money for the poor saints in Jerusalem on the basis that he has

boasted to others of how much they would give (2 Cor. 9:2), and these boasts had provoked others

to be generous; so now, they had better live up to their promise and give the cash. If somebody

promised to give money to charity and then didn‘t do so, we wouldn‘t pressurize them to give. And

we wouldn‘t really encourage one ecclesia to give money on the basis of telling them that another

ecclesia had promised to be very generous, so they ought to be too. Yet these apparently human

methods were used by Paul. He spoke ―in human terms‖ to the Romans, ―because of the infirmity of

your flesh‖ (Rom. 6:19 NIV); he so wanted to make his point understood. And when he told

husbands to love their wives, he uses another rather human reason: that because your wife is ―one

flesh‖ with you, by loving her you are loving yourself. ‗And‘, he reasons, ‗you wouldn‘t hate

yourself, would you, so – love your wife!‘. The cynic could reasonably say that this is pure

selfishness (Eph. 5:29); and Paul seems to recognize that the higher level of understanding is that a

husband should love his wife purely because he is manifesting the love of Christ to an often

indifferent and unappreciative ecclesia (5:32,33). And yet Paul plainly uses the lower level

argument too.It is possible to discern an element of human appeal in some Biblical statements. Thus

the Spirit encourages husbands to love their wives as themselves, because effectively they are

loving themselves if they do this (Eph. 5:29). Yet we are also warned that a characteristic of the last

days will be a selfish loving of ourselves. Paul speaks of how he puts things "in human terms"

(Rom. 6:19 NIV); e.g. he suggests that fear of the judgment alone ought to at least make us sit up

and take our spiritual life seriously (2 Cor. 5:11), even though the tenor of Scripture elsewhere is

that this shouldn't be our motivator.

We should note that Paul is almost apologizing for his metaphors, as if he had put something too

crudely. His metaphors are ‗humanly‘ quite acceptable- from the courtroom, slavery etc. Given the

height and wonder of the grace we are considering, any metaphor, any similitude, any language- is

inadequate and even borders on the inappropriate. And note that Paul is writing all these things,

both the metaphors and the apology for them, under Divine inspiration.

The changeover from the downward spiral to the upward spiral ought to have begun at baptism; but

as with some of the Roman believers in the first century, a believer can slip back into the downward

spiral: "Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing

wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness" (Rom. 6:19 NIV).

The life of sexual impurity is an "ever increasing" downwards path; the endless quest for new

relationships and sexual novelty doesn't need to be described. It is significant that having "left the

natural use of the woman"(Rom. 1:27), male homosexuals are described by Paul as descending on

an "ever increasing" path of perversion; they rarely remain where they are, in moral terms.

Rom. 6:19 speaks of how the ever increasing downward spiral of obedience to sin is turned round at

baptism, so that we begin an upward spiral of obedience to righteousness. God does good unto those

that are good, but leads those who turn aside even further astray (Ps. 125:4,5). Those who are

"[born] of God" are able to hear and understand God's words (Jn. 8:47)- and baptism is surely how

we are born of God (Jn. 3:3-5). This seems to open up the possibility of yet higher growth once we

are baptized- it's all an upward spiral, like any functional relationship.

Rom. 6:19-23 makes the contrast between how serving sin leads to ever increasing sin, whilst

serving Christ results in ever increasing righteousness. We are all too aware of the upward

(downward!) spiral of sin- we well know the feeling of losing our spiritual grip for an hour, day or

week, and sensing how sin is ever increasing its hold over us. But by our union with Christ in

baptism it is quite possible, indeed intended, that we should get into an upward spiral of obedience,

in which one spiritual victory leads to another.

6:20 Free from righteousness- Gk. ‗not a slave of‘. Again Paul is labouring the point that one cannot

serve two masters. And he does so in a way which makes us think: ‗That‘s stating the obvious! Why

165

are you repeatedly stating the obvious?‘. He does this because it‘s not obvious to us that we really

are servants of ―righteousness‖ rather than ―sin‖. We wonder whether we are really counted as

righteous or not. Note here that the names of the two slave masters are ―sin‖ and ―righteousness‖- in

Rom. 6:16 they were ―sin‖ and ―obedience‖. We are slaves of Christ, He is our righteousness, and it

is counted to us; so ―righteousness‖ is an appropriate title for Him, ―the Lord our righteousness‖.

6:21 What fruit…? There was no fruit in slavery; it was existence, rather than a life lived.

Now ashamed- shame is associated with condemnation at the final judgment. We recognize we are

condemned sinners, and feel the shame for that. The verse could be punctuated: ―What fruit did you

have then? That of which you are now ashamed‖. This is the great paradox in the Christian

experience- feeling condemned for sin, and yet believing in our new status, that we are declared

right before the judgment seat of God.

6:22 Become servants- see on 6:18. We were made free from slavery, rather than being bought by a

slave master from our previous owner. But we chose to become His slaves out of gratitude for His

grace. The same Greek is found in 1 Cor. 9:19: ―I have made myself a slave to all, that I might gain

the more‖. The idea is that made ourselves servants / slaves, having been made free from our old

master. The two slave masters are now called ―sin‖ and ―God‖.

You have your fruit- but Paul‘s whole intention of writing to the Roman church and ministering to

them was so that they would bear fruit (Rom. 1:13 cp. 15:28). If we truly understand that we are no

longer in ―sin‖ but the servants of God, in His sphere of things and His acceptance, then we will

bear fruit in practice, it simply has to be like that, it‘s inevitable. The idea of bearing fruit is

connected in the context to baptism into Christ. Jn. 12:24 records the Lord likening His death to a

seed falling into the ground, going as it were into a grave under the soil, but rising again and bearing

fruit. Again- all that is true of the Lord Jesus is true of us who are in Him. Paul has been saying that

we were planted together with Him (6:5), buried with Him, rose with Him- and as He is the plant

that bears fruit, so are we. We therefore aren‘t being exhorted to bear fruit, so much as being told

that we have our fruit- for we are in Him. And naturally, this means we will try to live in practice as

we are by status. But by status, we do now have our fruit- His fruit- and the end of all this will at the

final judgment be ―everlasting life‖.

6:23Wages- used specifically of pay given to soldiers (Lk. 3:14; 1 Cor. 9:7; and every usage in the

LXX is in this connection- 1 Esdra 4:56; 1 Macc. 3:28; 14:32). This would continue the military

analogy which was used in Rom. 6:13- of presenting our limbs as armour, weapons [Gk.], to King

Sin. See also the military term in Rom. 7:8.

The wages of sin and the gift of God are here contrasted. ―God‖ and ―sin‖ are the names of the two

slave masters in 6:22. We noted under 6:22 you have your fruit that the everlasting life will be the

end result of our service, given at the day of judgment at Christ‘s return. It may be that we are

intended to visualize the wages of sin being paid at the same time. In any case, all believers, all

servants of God, will die in any case. This isn‘t the wages of sin. Surely the ―death‖ that is in view

here in 6:23 is the second death at the day of judgment.

Asaph laments how the wicked seem to be so prosperous, and then remembers that one day God

will awake. More than this, he comes to see that "they... shall perish: thou hast destroyed them...

how are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors" (Ps.

73:27,19). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)- not 'it will be death at the judgment', it is right

now the response God makes to sin. Because God is without time, the judgment has effectively

happened to them. We are come to "God the judge of all"- even now (Heb. 12:23).

In Jesus Christ- remember that the context of this whole section in Romans is that of becoming in

Christ by baptism into Him. This is what associates us with the gift of eternal life.

166

Our natural man, the devil, is a personification of sin. He cannot be reformed; he can only be

destroyed by death. "The wages of the sin: death" (Rom. 6:23 Diaglott) seems to suggest that Rom.

6:23 is not saying that we die for each specific sin we commit (you can only die for one sin anyway,

because we only have one life); rather is it saying that the end of the natural man, "sin", the devil

within us, is death. Therefore we must associate ourselves with the man Christ Jesus, both in

baptism and in our way of life, so that the personification of Christ within us will be clothed with a

glorious bodily form at his return.

7:1 Are you ignorant- continues the appeal to the baptized believers in Rome to not be ignorant of

the implications of the things which they have believed and signed up for by baptism into Christ.

See on Rom. 6:3.

To them that know the Law- could suggest that this section is addressed to those within the ecclesia

in Rome who knew the Law, i.e. who were Jews. There were Gentiles in the church (Rom. 1:5-7,13-

15) for whom that phrase wouldn‘t be appropriate. Chapter 7 could therefore be considered as an

appeal to the Jewish subgroup within the Roman church. The language of ‗becoming dead to the

law‘ in 7:4 would only be appropriate to those who had once lived under it, i.e. Jews.

As long as he lives- an allusion to common Rabbinical teaching that the only Jew exempted from

keeping the Law is a dead Jew. Paul has been arguing in chapter 6 that we really did die in baptism.

Therefore, we are dead- and the Jews themselves taught that a dead man didn‘t need to keep the

Law.

Romans 6 (about sin) Romans 7 (about the Law)

―Sin shall not have (anymore) dominion over

you: for you are not under the Law‖ (:14)

―The Law has dominion over a man... as long as

he lives‖ (:1)

―Dead indeed unto sin‖ (:11) ―She is loosed from the Law‖ (:2)

―Being then made free from sin‖ (:18) ―She is free from that Law‖ (:3)

―As those that are alive from the dead... you

have your fruit unto holiness‖ (:13,22), having

left sin.

―You should be married to another, even to him

who is raised from the dead, that we should

bring forth fruit unto God‖ (:4), having left the

Law.

―Neither yield your members as instruments of

unrighteousness unto sin (as a result of sin

having dominion over you)‖ (:13,14)

―When we were in the flesh, the motions of sins,

which were by the law, did work in our

members... but now we are delivered from the

law‖ (:5,6)

―Therefore... we also should walk in newness of

life‖ (:4)

―We should serve in newness of spirit, and not

in the oldness of the letter‖ of the Law (:6)

7:2 If the husband be dead- it‘s tempting to interpret this as a reference to the death of Christ ending

the Law. But that interpretation runs into problems in 7:3, for there the woman- the body of

believers- is married to ―another man‖. See note on 7:4. Or it could be that Paul is seeking to make

the simple point that the death of one person can free another person from a law / legal obligation;

which is what happened in the death of Christ.

7:3 Be married- not the usual Greek word for marriage. Ginomai has a wide range of meaning; the

idea may be of her sharing with, being with, another husband at the same time as she is married to

her first husband. Rather than making any specific point about marriage (see on 7:4), Paul may be

showing that it‘s not possible for a woman to have two husbands at the same time- ―man‖ as in

―another man‖ is the same Greek word translated ―husband‖. This is being said in the context of

167

seeking to persuade us how impossible it is for us to be in covenant relationship with the two

spheres or positions [of law and grace, condemnation and justification] at one and the same time.

This is both a comfort and a challenge to us.

She shall be called- the Greek is usually used about a Divine statement, i.e. she will be called by

God.

7:4 Wherefore…- connects back to 7:1. The point being made in 7:2,3 is that death means a person

is free from keeping the Law. Paul isn‘t here teaching about the nature of marriage nor the

conditions under which he considered remarriage could occur; his theme is that death frees us from

the Law. And more precisely, it was by the death of another that the woman had been freed from a

law- that law no longer applied to her, not because she had died, but because another had died. This

is the significance of the death of Christ in freeing us from the Law.

Dead to the law by the body of Christ- is to be interpreted in the light of Col. 2:14, which also in a

baptism context speaks of the Law being nailed to the cross. But it was the body of Christ which

was nailed to the cross. If we are baptized into His body by baptism, nailed and crucified with Him,

then the Law is dead to us too.

Married to another- the metaphor is mixed and almost impossible to consistently interpret-

demonstrating if nothing else that logical consistency wasn‘t of paramount importance to the Bible

writers nor to the God who inspired their words.

Bring forth fruit unto God - We are now freed from the Law, and are free to marry Christ and bring

forth fruit, children, unto God. The fruit of the Spirit is what will last beyond the span of our

lifetimes, just as the desire for us to have significance beyond the grave is part of the motivating

factor in the desire to have children. The Greek for ‗bring forth fruit‘ occurs four of its eight times

in the New Testament in the parable of the sower. The good seed of the Gospel is to bring forth fruit

in us. Yet this doesn‘t mean that Bible reading somehow brings forth fruit; it is our active

intercourse and union with the Lord Jesus as a person which brings forth the fruit.

There is a frequent association of sin (the Devil) and the Mosaic Law throughout Romans (this is

not to say that the law is itself sinful – it led to sin only due to human weakness). A clear example of

this is found in Romans 6 talking about us dying to sin and living to righteousness, whilst Romans 7

speaks in the same language about the Law; thus ―he that is dead is free from sin... you (are) dead

indeed unto sin‖ (Rom. 6:7,11) cp. ―You also are become dead to the Law‖ (Rom. 7:4). Other

relevant examples are tabulated above on Rom. 7:1.

In the parable of the sower, the seed is surely Jesus (Jn. 12:24)- our eternal destiny is decided upon

our response to Him and His teaching. We are bidden believe in or into Jesus. Belief involves the

heart; it doesn't mean to merely give mental assent to some propositions. It must in the end involve

believing in a person, with all the feelings and emotions this involves. We are married unto the Lord

Jesus, in order that we might bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. 7:4). All spiritual fruit is therefore an

offspring, an outcome, of a living, daily relationship with the Lord Jesus. This is how crucial it is to

know Him.

7:5 When we were in the flesh- in the sphere of the flesh. The NIV ―sinful nature‖ is a poor

translation; no change of nature occurred when we were baptized. Rather did we cross over from

one status to another, from flesh to Spirit. We still posess the same ―mortal flesh‖ as we did before

converstion.

The emotions of sins- the Greek word translated ―emotions‖ is usually rendered ―sufferings‖. Sinful

passions are their own suffering. The word is only used again in Romans 8:18, speaking of how ―the

sufferings [s.w. ―emotions‖] of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that

shall be revealed‖. The sufferings of this life are, for us, the sufferings related to sin.

168

7:6 We are delivered from the law- ―delivered‖ is the same Greek word translated ―loosed‖ in 7:2:

the woman is loosed from the law of her husband. The suggestion is that Paul‘s audience had been

married to the Law and now remarried to Christ because the Law had as it were died. This confirms

our suggestion [see on 7:8] that Romans 7 is aimed at Jews who had once been associated with the

Law but were now in Christ. The death of the Law is made parallel with the death of Christ, in that

He nailed it to the cross, in the sense that He embodied the Law by perfectly obeying and fulfilling

it. The intention of the Law was that if fully obeyed, it would lead to a perfect man- the Lord Jesus.

In this sense it was ―ordained to life‖. In this sense ―the Law‖ and the person of Christ can be

legitimately presented in parallel as they are by Paul here.

Spirit… letter- are likewise contrasted in Rom. 2:29 and 2 Cor. 3:6.

It can be that we perceive even our service of God as the same old scene- the same round of daily

Bible reading (although, why not try reading from another version or in another language?), the

same cycle of church meetings and Bible schools. The same faces, the same issues. But our

experience of grace means ―that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the

letter‖ (Rom. 7:6). We don‘t have to serve God in the sense that He grants us salvation by pure

grace, not by works. But just because we don‘t have to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it

doesn‘t force us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do

perhaps the same things with an ever fresh spirit. The pure wonder of it all needs to be felt- that for

nothing but pure faith the Lord will grant us eternal redemption for the sake of the Lord‘s death and

resurrection. Which is why Rom. 6:4 says that because of this, and our appropriation of it in

baptism, we therefore live in newness of life, a quality of life that is ever new. Through His death, a

new and living way is opened (Heb. 10:20). We share the ever fresh life which the Lord lived from

His resurrection. It does us good to try to imagine that scene- the Son of God, coming out of the

grave at daybreak. He would have seen the lights of Jerusalem shimmering away in the distance, a

few kms. away, as everyone woke up and went back to work, the first day after the long holiday.

Getting the children ready, caring for the animals… it was back to the same old scene. But as they

did so, the Son of God was rising to newness of life, standing alone in the fresh morning air, with a

life that was ever new, with a joy and dynamism that was to know no end… His feelings are beyond

us, but all the same, distorted by our nature, by our spiritual dysfunction, into our lives His life

breaks through.

7:7 covet- Philo and other Jewish writings taught that covetousness was the origin of every sin.

James 1:15 may allude to this idea by saying that covetousness [s.w.; AV ―desire‖] gives birth to

sin.

Although sin exists amongst people who don‘t know God‘s law, we come to ―know‖ sin by the

Law. The Greek ginosko translated ―know‖ has a wide range of meaning; the idea could be that Paul

had not known sin in the sense of not being responsible to Divine judgment for it- until he knew the

Law.

Clearly perception of sinfulness grew in Paul after his conversion. He considered himself blameless

in keeping the law (Phil. 3:6); and yet chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:16). He realized that sin is to do

with attitudes rather than committed or omitted actions. I'd paraphrase Paul's personal reminiscence

in Rom. 7:7-10 like this: "As a youngster, I had no real idea of sin. I did what I wanted, thought

whatever I liked. But then in my early teens, the concept of God's commandments hit me. The

command not to covet really came home to me. I struggled through my teens and twenties with a

mad desire for women forbidden to me (AV, conveniently archaic, has "all manner of

concupiscence"). And slowly I found in an ongoing sense (Gk.), I grew to see, that the laws I had to

keep were killing me, they would be my death in the end". Paul‘s progressive realization of the

nature of sin is reflected in Romans 7:18,21,23. He speaks there of how he came to know that

nothing good was in him; he found a law of sinful tendency at work in him; he came to see another

law apart from God‘s law at work in his life. This process of knowing, finding and seeing his own

169

sinfulness continued throughout his life. His way of escape from this moral and intellectual dilemma

was through accepting the grace of the Lord Jesus at his conversion. In one of his earliest letters,

Paul stresses that he felt like the least of the apostles, he honestly felt they were all better than he

was (1 Cor. 15:9). However, he reminisces that in his earlier self-assurance, he had once considered

himself as not inferior to "the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5). Some years later, he wrote to the

Ephesians that he felt "less than the least of all saints" (Eph. 3:8). This was no Uriah Heep, fawning

humility. He really felt that he was the worst, the weakest, of all the thousands of believers scattered

around the shores of the Mediterranean at that time. As he faced his death, he wrote to Timothy that

he was " chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), the worst sinner in the world, and that Christ's grace to him

should therefore serve as an inspiration to every other believer, in that none had sinned as

grievously as he had done. It could well be that this is one of Paul‘s many allusions back to the

Gospels- for surely he had in mid the way the publican smote upon his breast, asking God to be

merciful ―to me the sinner‖ (Lk. 18:13 RVmg.). "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"

is rooted in the Lord's words that He came to call sinners and to seek and save the lost (Mt. 9:13;

18:11; 1 Tim. 1:15).

7:8 Taking occasion- a military term, referring a base camp. This continues the image of sin as a

military leader (see on Rom. 6:23).

Wrought in me- in direct opposition to the common Jewish idea that the Law curbed sin. Indeed the

Talmud in b. Qidd. 30b claimed that God said at Sinai: ―I created the evil desire but I also created

the Torah as its antidote; if you occupy yourselves with the Torah, you will not be delivered into its

hand‖ .[See E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979)

Vol. 2 pp. 425-428.] Paul is arguing from experience- both Israel‘s over the years and his own- that

the reverse is true. The very existence of commandment tends to lead to that commandment being

broken, as every parent soon learns (or re-learns) in the parenting process.

All manner of concupiscence- in gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a

child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of

commandments registered with him; and this "wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom.

7:8). "Concupiscence" is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of

Paul, the Greek epithumia is invariably used in a sexual context. See on 2 Cor. 12:7.

Without the Law, sin was dead- connects with the fact that through baptism into Christ, we are

―dead indeed unto sin‖ (Rom. 6:11). Sin depends upon the law for strength; but the Law died with

Jesus; He fulfilled it perfectly, He achieved the intention, for Him, the Law was indeed ordained to

life (Rom. 7:10). If the law is really dead, then sin is powerless- for those who are in Christ, who

fulfilled the Law. It‘s almost too good news; that the end of law means the end of the power of sin.

This was all especially radical for Jewish ears. The ‗death‘ of the Law is a strong concept- and it

challenges not only Sabbath keepers, but all of us who think that surely obedience to Divine law

must have some role to play in our salvation.

A case can be made, especially from Rom. 7:8-10, that the whole of Rom. 7:7-25 is Paul talking

about Israel- we have shown in notes on Rom. 7:1 that Paul is speaking in this section specifically to

Jews. In this case, Paul would have so identified himself with Israel that he speaks in the first

person, as if he personally ‗is‘ them. He so loved his people that he saw all Israel‘s history

personified as it were in himself. Another approach to bear in mind is that it was quite possible in

first century literature to use ego, the first person singular, as a literary or rhetorical device without

any reference to the author‘s personal situation. Thus it could be argued that the ―And if I…‖

phrases in 1 Cor. 13:1-3 are an example of this, rather than Paul talking about himself. Other

possible examples from the NT and from throughout contemporary writings are given in R.H.

Gundry, The Old is Better: New Testament Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) pp. 229,230 and

J. Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) pp. 73-91.

170

The way in which Adam is to be seen as everyman is exemplified by how Paul speaks of his own

spiritual life and failure in terms of Adam‘s encounter with sin in the form of the serpent. Note the

allusions to Adam‘s fall in Rom. 7:8–11: ―But sin [cp. The snake], seizing an opportunity in the

commandment [singular – there was only one commandment in Eden], produced in me all kinds of

covetousness [the essence of the temptation to eat the fruit]... I [as Adam] was once alive apart from

the law [Adam was the only person to ever truly exist for a time without any law], but when the

commandment [singular – to not eat the fruit] came, sin sprang to life and I died [as Adam], and the

very commandment that [seemed to] promise[d] life [cp. The hope of eating of the tree of life]

proved to be death to me. For sin [cp. the snake] seizing an opportunity in the commandment,

deceived me [s.w. 2 Cor. 11:3 about the serpent deceiving Eve] and through it killed me‖. Note how

Rom. 7:7–13, with all the Adam allusions, speaks in the past tense; but in the autobiographical

section which follows in Rom. 7:14–25, Paul uses the present tense – as if to suggest that both Paul

and by extension all of us live out the essence of Adam‘s failure. He was everyman, and his

salvation through the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus, can be everyman‘s salvation if he so

chooses. But in our context we note the pointed – and it is pointed – omission by Paul of any

reference to a Satan figure.

7:9,10 appear to be alluding to God giving the Law to Israel. See on 7:8. In this case, Paul is

speaking of himself in solidarity with Israel; for it could never be really said that a Jewish child was

once without the Law. Indeed, first century Judaism emphasized this point- that Jewish children are

under the Law [see S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Vol. 2 p. 771.]. Throughout Romans 1-8, Paul is provocatively

seeking to answer potential Jewish objections and strengthen the case of Christ‘s Gospel against

them. We have pointed out many examples of how he alludes to and deconstructs contemporary

Jewish writings and opinions, sometimes at the cost of writing in a way which is apparently obtuse

and difficult for Gentile readers to understand. And yet he now openly identifies himself with his

beloved people. This, surely, is our pattern in seeking to persuade others- to identify with them,

rather than merely lecture them. It almost seems that in the same way as Adam is set up as

everyman, so Paul wishes himself personally to seen as every Jew. The way he elsewhere describes

himself as a ―Hebrew of the Hebrews‖ with impeccable Jewishness would confirm this (Phil. 3:5).

See on Rom. 7:11.

7:9 Alive without the Law- Paul presumably refers to his earliest childhood or babyhood, when he

wasn‘t accountable to the Law.

When the commandment came- a reference to Paul‘s Bar-Mitzvah, or his attaining the age of

responsibility to God.

Sin revived- the only other time the word is used in Romans is in Rom. 14:9, where we read of the

Lord‘s resurrection as Him ‗reviving‘. Clearly the personified ‗sin‘ here is being set up as the very

antithesis to the Lord Jesus.

And I died- a reference to being in the dock before God, tried and condemned as a sinner. So certain

is that sentence of ultimate death that it was as if Paul had died. This interpretation is, I suggest, in

keeping with the previous metaphors in Romans with regard to death. So instead of tending to life

and blessing, and curbing sin, the Law instead accented sin and led to the condemnation of death.

7:10 unto life- this presumably implies that perfect keeping of the law would have resulted in a

person living the life of God, the kind of life which will be lived in the eternal life (which might also

be implied in Lev. 18:5 cp. Rom. 10:5; Ps. 19:7-10; Ez. 20:11; Lk. 20:28). Death for such a person

would therefore be necessary because of their relation with Adam, but would in another sense be

unjust, in that they had not sinned. The perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus therefore required His

resurrection. His eternal life wasn‘t given to Him by grace, but He was entitled to it by obedience.

171

He had no pre-existent eternal life; He was given eternal life because of His obedience. And His life

is counted to us who are ―in Him‖ by grace. See on Rom. 7:12.

Found- s.w. Rom. 7:18,21. Paul obviously examined his life and therefore can speak of what he had

found / discovered about himself. This level of self-knowledge is surely our pattern… for the

unexamined life isn‘t life but mere existence.

7:11 deceived me… slew me- alluding to Gen. 3:13: ―The serpent deceived me, and I ate‖. The

allusion is to Adam and Eve in Eden. In chapter 5 (and see on Rom. 3:23), Paul has repeatedly

taught that Adam is everyman. And now he includes himself in this, by applying the language of the

failure in Eden to himself. Likewise his finding the commandment ordained to life becoming the

means of death (7:10,13) may reference Gen. 2:16,17. Yet whilst Adam is indeed everyman to Paul,

Adam was perceived as Israel in much Rabbinic writing; and Paul saw himself as the

personification and epitomy of Israel (see on Rom. 7:9,10). The Greek translated ―deceived‖ really

means to seduce. How did sin seduce Paul through or by means of the Law of Moses? Surely in the

sense that Paul fell for the temptation to justify himself by means of obedience to that Law. But

because he didn‘t keep the Law perfectly, he was therefore condemned to death, and in a sense,

received the sentence- and in that sense sin by means of the Law ―slew‖ Paul. The only other time

the word for ‗deceived / seduced‘ occurs in Romans is in the practical section, which in this case

again alludes to this doctrinal section: ―[the Judaizers] by fair speeches deceive the hearts of the

simple‖, as the serpent deceived Eve (2 Cor. 11:3 s.w.). Just as Paul deceived himself, fell to the

seductive idea that we can be justified by works of obedience to the Law, so the Judaizers were

teaching the same. By so doing, they were sin personified- they were doing the work of ―sin‖- using

the attraction of obedience to a legal code to seduce believers into a position where they were in fact

going to be condemned to death- because under that sphere, there can be no justification, no

declaring right, for those who have in even one sense infringed Divine law. It‘s all a complicated yet

powerful way of saying that we simply must not and cannot be in the sphere of relying upon works;

which means we have to just accept the gift of salvation by grace, much as all within us cries out

against it.

7:12 Paul hastens here to emphasize that the Law itself isn‘t sinful or wrong in itself; it is indeed

―holy, just and good‖ (a common Jewish description of their Law); but the knowledge of any legal

code creates accountability for sin. Only in that is there the connection between the Law and sin.

The Law was ―ordained to life‖, and I have suggested under 7:10 that this could mean that perfect

obedience to the Law would have led to living the life of God, to moral perfection. The Law could

not of itself give eternal life, in that it could not undo the mortality which was to pass upon all

Adam‘s descendants. The Law sought to inculcate a culture of kindness toward others and devotion

to God. Significantly, the Lord Jesus is described in the same words- the Holy and Just One (Acts

3:14), as if He was such on account of the way His obedience to the Law developed such a

character.

7:13 Was then that which is good made death…?- there was no actual change in the Law, in that it

didn‘t once offer life and then changed to offer death. The Law was of itself holy, just and good- but

it was used [by God?] to make sin ―appear‖ as sin, to accent and highlight sin for what it is; and

through man‘s failure to keep the Law, sin was indeed shown to be an exceedingly great sinner (this

is how the Greek behind ―might become exceeding sinful‖ can be translated‖). I find it significant

that in Paul‘s sustained personification of sin in these passages, he never once uses the terms ―devil‖

or ―satan‖. He clearly saw the problem as human sin, which he personifies because one cannot have

abstract ―sin‖, in that according to the Bible, sin is committed by and within the minds of personal

beings, and in no other realm or dimension. It‘s appropriate therefore that sin be personified.

We must doggedly hold on to the interconnections of thought within Paul's argument in Romans.

Chapters 1-5 convict all of sin, demonstrating that works can in no way save us. Chapter 6 then

outlines how we can be saved; through association with Christ through baptism and a life ―in

172

Christ", which will result in God seeing us in the exalted way He does. Chapter 7 basically goes on

to say 'But, of course, you'll still sin, even though chapter 6 has explained how God doesn't look at

that side of you if you truly try to live "in Christ" '. Paul says many things about his life in Rom. 7

which seem to consciously connect with his description of life before baptism in Chapter 6 (e.g.

7:13 = 6:23; 7:14 = 6:17; 7:23 = 6:12,13; 7:24 = 6:6; 7:25 = 6:16,17). The reason for this is that

after baptism, we have two people within us; the man of the flesh, who totally dominated our pre-

baptismal life, is still within us; but (as Chapter 7 so graphically shows) he is now in mortal conflict

with the man of the Spirit, with whom we identify our real selves. Chapter 8 then goes on to

encourage us that despite this conflict, sin is dead in Christ, and if we are in Him, then this is really

how God sees us. Therefore Rom. 8 stresses that our state of mind is so crucial; if we are led of the

Spirit-man, then we are assured of salvation at that point in time. Rom. 9-11 then appeals

specifically to Israel to accept the glorious truth of all this, and then Chapters 12-16 show the

practical response we should all make. Recognizing the existence of the new and old men within

him, Paul can speak in Rom. 7 as if he is two different people; ―I myself serve the law of God‖, but

―my flesh‖ serves sin. Likewise David asked God not to hide His face from him, David personally,

(Ps. 27:9; 69:17; 102:2; 143:7), but to hide His face from David‘s sins (Ps. 51:9). And one wonders

whether the way the records of the Lord‘s temptations are written implies some similar recognition

by the Spirit of the two ‗men‘ within the Lord.

7:14 I am carnal - but ―in Christ‖ he was not carnal (1 Cor. 3:1 s.w.). Again he has in mind states,

positions, spheres. ―Carnal‖ is literally ‗fleshly‘. He points up the contrast between the flesh and

Spirit. We cannot get into the ‗Spirit‘ sphere by obeying the Law, even though the Law is

―spiritual‖, given by and of the Holy Spirit. The way to get into the sphere or status of the Spirit

isn‘t by obedience to a spiritual Law, because we keep failing to be obedient. We enter the sphere of

the Spirit by baptism into Christ, ―the Lord the Spirit‖ (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). He is ―the Spirit‖ in that

He embodies the Spirit of God- and therefore this is His title in Rom. 8:26. And Romans 8 will

argue further that it is by our acceptance of our new status by grace, believing that we really are ―in

Christ‖ and justified by God‘s grace, that the Spirit will work in our lives; so that we are indeed in

the Spirit and not in the flesh.

Sold under sin- as if he was a slave to the ―sin‖ master. This is how the word is used in Mt. 18:25

and many times in its LXX usage. Yet in chapter 6 he has exalted that in Christ, we died to the

power of sin (6:2) and are not under sin (6:18,22). So what does Paul mean? He may mean that he

had been sold under sin; maybe using a literary rhetorical device which is relevant to the

unredeemed Jews rather than himself personally; maybe he is at this point totally identified with

Israel and is personifying Israel under the Law without Christ; or is it that he is admitting his

personal failure to walk the talk he has outlined so eloquently in chapter 6; or is he recognizing that

although we have changed status and masters with our real self, the inward man who delights in

God‘s law (7:22), we are still human and that human side of us still sins? My own suggestion is that

Paul is here quoting a phrase from Rabbinic writings, although it would seem that the source has

been lost to us. This would be in keeping with his style throughout Romans 1-8. He would then be

using the Jewish writings themselves to demonstrate the misery of the human position without

Christ; and this would fit in with the way at times in Romans 7:7-25 he appears to be consciously

personifying Israel.

7:15 I allow not- Gk. to know, recognize, perceive, approve. The word has a wide range of meaning,

so interpretation cannot be too forcefully pressed here, but the idea may be that Paul is sharing his

impression that the sinful things he does, he performs almost unawares, almost unconsciously, and

he may be alluding to the image of slavery- mindless obedience, actions performed as automatisms.

This is not to justify nor minimize human sin, but to rather make the point that it is performed

within the context of being a slave to sin; and by status, we have changed masters. Note that Paul

concludes this section by saying that in his mind he serves as a slave the law of God, whilst with his

173

flesh he is still the slave of sin (Rom. 7:25). Yet all the same, we are ultimately ―in Christ‖, with no

condemnation possible, because we serve Him (Rom. 8:1).

What I would- ―would‖ means ‗to will‘, and occurs frequently in this section (Rom.

7:15,16,18,19,20,21). Paul is saying that what he wills to do, he simply lacks the will to do; he

laments the weakness of his will in being obedient. The interlude about the election of Israel in

Romans 9-11 practically exemplifies the theology of Romans 1-8; and this theme of Paul‘s weak

will is commented upon in Rom. 9:16: ―So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but

of God that shows mercy‖. It‘s not that salvation is only for he or she who somehow finds within

themselves some steel will against sin. It is not of him that wills, but of God‘s grace. Were it a

question of steel will, it would be a matter of works; but due to our change of status, it isn‘t a matter

of steel, but rather of God‘s grace and our acceptance of it. In fact, Rom. 9:18 goes further, and

states that it‘s not a question of our will but of God‘s will. Some He has mercy upon, as He wills;

others He hardens, as He wills. And we in Christ are for sure those whom He has ‗willed‘ to have

mercy upon. And as expemplified by the choice of unspiritual Jacob over nice guy, man of the

world Esau- that Divine will in election simply doesn‘t depend upon works. Otherwise it wouldn‘t

be grace; indeed, the whole concept of predestination and Divine calling regardless of works is

raised by Paul to demonstrate the principle- that it‘s not by works or lack of them that we are

acceptable to God.

What I hate, that I do- this contrasts with the triumphant passages in Romans 6 which speak of our

change of status from being under sin to being under Christ. That contrast is surely intentional. We

could say that Paul is now in chapter 7 talking of our practical experience, of how things are on the

ground. They‘re bad; sin is strong and we are weak. But he emphasizes this in such a graphic

manner in order to point up the wonder of the fact that all this notwithstanding, we are by status

justified, declared right before God, have left the sphere of the flesh and are in that of the Spirit. The

reality of present failure makes our changed status all the more wonderful. Perhaps another comfort

from all this is that if we truly hate sin (cp. Rev. 2:6) rather than love every moment of it, then we

are somehow on the right track and are in fact like Paul within the sphere of the Spirit in our hearts.

7:15-25 Paul's autobiographical passage in Romans 7, where he describes his sinfulness and the

results of it, is actually expressed in terms of Adam's fall in Eden. So many phrases which he uses

are lifted out of the LXX of Genesis 3. The evident examples are: "I would never have known what

it is to covet, if the Law had not said, You must not covet [cp. Eve coveting the fruit]... when the

command came... sin [cp. the serpent] beguiled me... to kill me... sin resulted in death for me by

making use of this good thing... who will rescue me now from the body of death?". Adam is

presented to us as 'every man'; and so Paul applies this to himself, and yet through the allusion to

'every man' in Adam, he sets himself up also as our example.

7:16 I consent- Gk. ‗to speak together with‘. The very fact we struggle against sin, we have a will

not to disobey the Law, is in fact speaking together with the Law, agreeing that it is good. Whilst in

the primary context Paul is writing to Jewish Christians with the Mosaic Law in view, the principles

are the same for any Divine law at any time. The comfort is that if we feel we ‗would not‘ sin /

break the Law but end up doing so, then actually, we are speaking in unison with the Law, we are

not actually in disagreement with it.

7:17 No more I that do it- the same Greek as in Rom. 6:9, where ―no more‖ means ‗not any longer‘,

as in Rom. 7:20. For those in Christ, like Paul, our sins are no longer done by us but are considered

as committed by the old man, the Adam, the status, sphere and person we are no longer identified

with. We are to understand our sins as somehow separate from the real me, the ‗me‘ with whom we

finally identify. ‗It‘s no longer me, but sin who sins‘ seems to be the idea… as if Paul is dissociating

himself from himself; and that‘s a position which surely all true believers can identify with.

174

sin that dwells within me- an allusion to the Jewish concept of the yetser ha ra, the inclination to

evil. The Rabbis taught that this can be curbed by the Law. But Paul is saying that the Law actually

empowers this inclination, and the victory is through God‘s gracious counting of us as right in

Christ. See on 7:19 the good that I would- a reference to the supposed good inclination in man, the

yetser ha tob. The very idea of sin dwelling within me suggests that ―sin‖ and ―me‖ are different

categories, even if they are related.

7:18 For I know- the idea could be ‗I have come to realize‘. Do we analyze our own sinfulness as

deeply as Paul did? See on Rom. 7:7.

To will is present- surely an allusion to the disciples in Gethsemane, with willing spirits but weak

flesh (Mt. 26:41). They were in the wrong, their weakness in stark contrast to the watchful, sweating

Lord Jesus as He struggled against sin. And Paul invites us to feel the same. The Greek for

―present‖ occurs only here and in Rom. 7:21. It means literally ‗to lie near‘ and could have in mind

the language of Gen. 4:7, where sinful Cain was encouraged that a sin offering lay near him, outside

the door, ready for him to confess his sin over and sacrifice.

But how to perform- Paul confessed to an inability to translate his will into action. Yet in 7:25 he

will soon rejoice that he had found the answer in Christ, which we have consistently interpreted as a

reference to our being ―in Christ‖ by status in Him. The Greek for ―perform‖ occurs later in

Romans, where Paul glories of the many things ―which Christ has wrought [s.e. ‗perform‘] by me‖

(Rom. 15:18). For that not to be a statement of pride nor trust in the works which Paul has so often

exposed as valueless before God, we must understand Paul as totally committed to the idea of Christ

working or performing through him. He has finally found ―how to perform‖ the works he had so

wished to- by believing totally in his ―in Christ‖ status, feeling the extent to which he was now at

one with Christ, and thereby sensing the extent to which Christ was working His works through

him, the works he would love to have performed whilst under the Law, but found himself simply

not strong willed enough to perform.

That which is good- in the context must surely refer to the Jewish Law which was the ―good

[thing]‖ (Rom. 7:12,13,16). There was no ―good thing‖ within Paul‘s flesh, no natural tendency to

fulfill that Law; and so he found no way to totally obey that Law as he had so desperately wanted to

in his youth.

When Paul laments that he cannot find ―how to perform that which is good‖, he is speaking about

the Law of Moses. For the context of Romans 7 repeatedly defines the Mosaic Law as that which is

―holy, just and good… the law is [the] good [thing]‖, the law of God in which Paul delighted (Rom.

7:12,16,22). The ―no good thing‖ which dwelt within Paul was therefore a description of his

inability to keep the Mosaic Law, rather than any reference to human nature- for the ―good thing‖

has just been defined as the Mosaic Law (Rom. 7:18). But all this was to create the lead in to the

realization that now in Christ, there is now no condemnation.

7:19 the good that I would- a reference to the supposed good inclination in man, the yetser ha tob ,

which the Rabbis said was strengthened by the Law (see on 7:17). Paul seems to be saying that this

good inclination is a myth, or if it exists, it has little cash value in the battle against temptation. The

way of escape is through God‘s grace in Christ. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some

Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (New York: Harper & Row 1948) pp. 19-27 demonstrates

beyond cavil that Paul in this section of Romans is constantly alluding to and critiquing the

Rabbinic ideas of the yetser ha tob and the yetser ha ra. ―The good‖ must connect with the same

word being used in Rom. 7:12,13 to describe the Law of Moses as ―good‖. Paul so wished to be

perfectly obedient to the Law- but found it impossible.

The evil… I do- the same words are to be found in Paul‘s warning that Divine condemnation,

―tribulation and anguish‖, awaits every man who ‗does evil‘ (Rom. 2:9). Paul was so aware that his

sin did in fact merit the term ―evil‖, and condemnation before God‘s judgment. The more we

175

appreciate the extent and implications of our sin, the deeper will be our sense of relief and glory at

the wonderful way we are ‗declared right‘ by God.

7:20 No more I that do it- see on Rom. 7:17. He sees fit to repeat the teaching of v. 17, so important

is this- that we are not to identify our real self with our sinful side.

7:21 Find then a law- ―law‖ often in the context refers to the Law of Moses. Paul may mean ‗I find

then with respect to the Law‘. He could conceivably be using ―law‖ merely in the sense of

―principle.

Evil is present- the same word has just been used in 7:18, where the desire to do good is likewise

―present‖ or lying next to Paul. The impression is of the two desires, to do good and to do evil, are

lying next to Paul; he must decide which one to take up, but he almost automatically seems to pick

up the ―evil‖.

7:22 I delight in the Law- hating the evil, delighting in God‘s law, yet finding oneself doing exactly

what we don‘t wish to do… all this is exactly the experience of believers in Christ today. We really

are in Paul‘s position, and have every reason to share in his later positivism- for it is based on the

fact that we don‘t do the works we need to, yet we are saved by grace.

Paul had an amazing commitment to unity in the brotherhood. One could say that it was this which

led him to his death, and certainly to political self-destruction in the politics of the early church. For

his desire to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians was humanly speaking a loser- the Jewish converts

simply would not give up their allegiance to the synagogue, with all the political and economic

benefits this involved; nor would they really accept Gentiles. And Gentiles were never going to

accept Jewish observances, indeed Paul knew this to be spiritually wrong. I submit that the whole

epistle to the Romans is an exposition of the Gospel which has Jewish-Gentile unity as its

underlying burden. This becomes apparent in the opening chapters. This to me is the key to

understanding Romans 7. There Paul opens his heart and speaks frankly of his own inner conflicts.

He says that he delights in [keeping] the law of God, yet he has a principle within him which seeks

to make him captive to the law of sin (Rom. 7:22). I suggest he may be referring to his love, as an

ex-Pharisee, of the Law of Moses, but this leads him to desire to keep the whole Law, including the

halakah [the ordinances of the Rabbis]. He speaks of his struggle to both ignore the Jewish laws,

and yet keep them. He concludes that he cannot keep them adequately, and so he surrenders to

justification by faith in Christ alone. I read Paul as saying that he initially accepted justification in

Christ, but then after his conversion he went through a period of seeking to keep the Law, and ―sin

revived‖. And so he strongly concluded that he must throw himself solely upon Christ‘s grace.

1 Pet. 3:4 speaks of the spiritual man within us as "the hidden man of the heart... a meek and quiet

spirit". This confirms that this "man" is the personification of a spirit, or attitude of mind. Thus our

real spiritual person is "hidden". The world therefore cannot understand us, or be truly close to the

believer who has the spiritual man utmost in their heart. The Gospel itself is a "mystery"

('something hidden'), yet this hidden mystery is the dynamic power in our "hidden man" of the

Spirit. All that is hidden will be openly revealed in the Kingdom (Mt. 10:26). The inward man of

Rom. 7:22 is what is so important; yet the LXX in Lev. 3:14-16 uses the same word to describe the

fat surrounding the intestines, which God appeared to so value in the sacrifices. It was not that He

wanted that fat in itself; but rather He saw that fat as representing a man's essential spirituality, that

which is developed close to the heart, unseen by others, but revealed after death.

7:23 I see- Gk. to behold, view. Paul is speaking as it were from outside of himself, or more

accurately, from outside of the hopeless sinner whose behaviour and weakness he so laments. This

device serves to indicate the degree to which he chose to be identified not with that ‗person‘, but

with the man Christ Jesus to whom in his mind, in his deepest heart, he belonged and ultimately

identified with. Looking at our position this way, it becomes apparent that what I would term

‗ultimate identity‘ is the ultimate question of our whole existence- who in our hearts do we identify

176

with, wish to be with, love rather than hate? Christ, or sin? We see in this whole passage the very

clear answer in the case of Paul.I can say at this time, it‘s clear in my own case. And I know it is in

that of so many believers.

Another law…- Paul speaks of a battle between two laws. A battle is usually unto death, but in this

case, Paul is taken captive, and captives taken in battle [if they were spared] always entered slavery.

So Paul implies he is in slavery- at least, in the flesh. The ‗law‘ is perhaps that of 7:21- the principle

that whenever he would do good, there is another reasoning which appears next to [―present‖ AV]

that desire to do good. And this principle invariably wins. But we are tempted to see an association

between that law / principle and the Law of Moses. For the very same word is used, and if Paul

simply meant ‗principle‘, he could have used such a word in Greek.

Warring- a related word is used in James 4:1, about lusts warring in our bodies. The existence of

such warring isn‘t wrong in itself, it‘s part of being human; it‘s which side wins the battle which

counts; and even moreso, which side we in our deepest hearts identify ourselves with.

7:24 Wretched- the Greek word is elsewhere used about the feelings of the rejected before God‘s

judgment (James 5:1; Rev. 3:17), likewise in the LXX (Is. 47:11; Mic. 2:4; Joel 1:15; Zeph. 1:15).

Paul feels as if he is even now standing before the judgment seat of God, and is condemned- yet

suddenly he rejoices that he is in fact amazingly saved by Christ. This is the very theme of the

earlier sections of Romans- that we are suddenly declared right, justified, as we stand condemned in

the dock before God. This lends weight to the suggestion that Romans 7 is indeed autobiographical

of Paul, declaring the process of his own conversion, yet telling the story, as it were, in terms which

present him as personifying every Jew under the Law.

Deliver me – the same word occurs in Romans in the excursus about Israel in Rom. 11:26- where

Christ is ―the deliverer‖ who comes to deliver hopelessly sinful Israel, whom Paul embodies in this

section in Romans 7.

Body of this death- yet Paul has argued at the beginning of Romans 7 and elsewhere that just as the

body of the Lord Jesus died on the cross, so every believer has already died with Christ. And yet

clearly Paul still feels trapped within the body, with all the temptations which are part of being

human.

Romans 7 and 8 are so opposed to each on surface level reading. At the end of Romans 7, Paul is

lamenting ‗Oh wretched man that I am!‘. At the end of Romans 8, he is rejoicing in the utter

certainty of salvation, apparently lost for words [even under inspiration] to gasp out the wonder of it

all. So huge is the difference of spirit that expositor after expositor has concluded that this must all

be read biographically- as if in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of his life before conversion, and goes on

in Romans 8 to describe his life afterwards. But Greek tenses [unlike Hebrew ones] are precise. The

tenses in Romans 7 make that a very strained reading. Paul is saying that he right now feels utterly

frustrated by his constant doing that which he doesn‘t want to do, his apparent inability to do good,

and his wretchedness. I submit that the two chapters dovetail together. It was only though the

appreciation of personal sin which we meet in Romans 7 that Paul could reason through to the paen

of praise and confidence which he reaches by the end of Romans 8.

The Bible has so much to say about death, depicting us as having a ―body of death‖ (Rom. 7:24).

And yet humanity generally doesn‘t want to seriously consider death. Yet death is the moment of

final truth, which makes all men and women ultimately equal, destroying all the categories into

which we place people during our or their lives. If we regularly read and accept the Bible‘s

message, death, with all its intensity and revelation of truth and the ultimate nature of human issues,

is something which is constantly before us, something we realistically face and know, not only in

sickness or at funerals. And the realness, the intensity, the truth… which comes from this will be

apparent in our lives.

177

7:25 Through Jesus Christ- in the sense that we can become ―in Christ‖ and all that is true of Him

becomes true of us.

With the mind I myself- the classic statement of personal identity, the climax of the whole

exclamation of relief, the answer to all the spiritual frustration and anguish of this chapter. He

himself, his real self. Identified with being a slave of God; but his flesh continued to serve sin.

8:1 No condemnation – referring back to the idea of Rom. 5:16,18, which are the only other places

in the NT where the word occurs. We have been declared right before God‘s judgment; there is now

no condemnation any more. Even though in Rom. 7:24 Paul has been saying he feels the

wretchedness of condemnation as a sinner (see note there).

Who walk not after the flesh- too easily the wonderful promise that there is no condemnation for

those in Christ can become muted by this apparent rider, that we must walk after the Spirit and not

after the flesh. Yet Paul has been lamenting throughout the preceding chapter 7 that he walks after

the flesh. His argument throughout the letter so far has been that although we continue committing

sin, by status we are in Christ. The condemnation, the adverse verdict, has been removed. We are

justified, declared righteous. And this is because we are located ―in Christ‖. Paul is surely aware of

the apparent contradictions and tensions within his argument- so he‘s surely foreseeing our

objection, that we still walk after the flesh. And he states that we who are in Christ Jesus do not

walk after the flesh. It‘s not a condition- as if to say ‗There is no condemnation for us who are in

Christ if we walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh‘. For this would make salvation contingent

upon our ‗walking‘, our works- and his whole argument has been that salvation is by grace and not

works. Those who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh is therefore a description of, rather

than an exhortation to, those who are in Christ. His Spirituality is counted to them. By status we are

not in the flesh but in the Spirit, and this is confirmed by the Spirit dwelling in us (Rom. 8:9). Rom.

7:5 likewise speaks of our being ―in the flesh‖ as something in the past, our previous status. Another

possibility is that ―walk after‖ here describes not to a total way of life, but rather a following after,

an inclination towards, rather than a final arriving at the destination. And that again fits in so

precisely with our position as believers in Christ today- as Paul has been saying in Romans 7, we

incline after, follow after, dearly aspire to, the things of the Spirit; even if we don‘t attain them as

we would wish.

8:2 Paul starts to speak here in chapter 8 about the Spirit. He has explained that we are declared

right by God, even as we stand in the dock condemned; he has said that we must believe this, and

that faith in this rather than any works is what makes it true for us. He has then started to explore the

mechanics of how it all works out- that we believe ―into Christ‖ by baptism into Him, whereby we

are counted as Him; and so we have changed spheres, positions, identities, from ―sin‖ to ―Christ‖.

He has observed that this doesn‘t mean that we don‘t sin, and he laments the power of sin within

him, always eager to point out the Law has strengthened sin rather than helped us overcome it, and

that therefore grace is the all important basis of our salvation. He characterizes the two positions or

spheres in various terms, and in chapter 7 he starts speaking of them as ―flesh‖ and ―spirit‖. He

observes that there is in himself a struggle between the two, but his real self definitely identifies

himself with the Spirit rather than the flesh. Being in the Spirit is the same as being ―in Christ‖, and

―the Spirit‖ is a title of Christ in Rom. 8:26,27. Romans 8 now proceeds to explore the function of

―the Spirit‖ in more depth.

The spirit of life in Christ has set me free- The spirit of life in Christ sets us free from sin (Rom.

8:2); but Gal. 5:1 simply says that ―Christ‖ has set us free [the same Greek phrase] from sin. The

Man Christ Jesus is His ―spirit of life‖; the man and His way of life were in perfect congruence.

They always were; for in Him the word was made flesh. Rom. 6:18,22 explain simply that we are

―made free from sin‖ by baptism into Christ. Here we are given more detail; we were made free

from the principle of sin and death, the law which Paul had observed at work within him in chapter

7, that our sinful desires are stronger than our spiritual intentions, and therefore ―in the flesh‖ we are

178

condemned to death. Our slavery to this principle has been overcome by ―the spirit of life in Christ‖.

Rom. 6:18,22 says that we were simply freed from sin by becoming ―in Christ‖ by baptism and

belief into Him. Rom. 8:2 is saying that this operates, is effectual, by ―the spirit of life in Christ‖.

This could mean that the spirit of life which was in the Lord Jesus Christ as a person- the perfection

of spirit or character which was His, which was like God- is counted to us by our status ―in Christ‖.

It could also, or alternatively, mean that this status we have is as it were mechanically made

effective by the work of the Spirit, which sanctifies us before God. It‘s not so much that the Spirit

enters our hearts and makes us righteous, for in chapter 7 Paul has been lamenting how we still sin

and are in one sense still enslaved to sin. Rather it could be that ―the Spirit‖ works in our lives to

make us sanctified before God, rather than in the realities of daily life. The ―sanctification of the

Spirit‖ which we read of elsewhere in the NT (e.g. 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 10:29; 1 Pet.

1:2) would therefore refer to how God counts us as righteous, as in Christ, with a spirit like His. In

this sense Christ is made unto us sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). It‘s by the working of the Spirit. We

can on one hand simply accept that God counts us as righteous, as Christ, because we are ―in Him‖.

But probing further as to how, mechanically as it were, this is the case- the answer is, ‗Through the

work of the Spirit sanctifying us, making us holy in His sight‘.

Paul‘s writings are packed with allusions to the Jewish ideas about the ―ages‖ ending in the

Messianic Kingdom and the destruction of Satan. Paul was correcting their interpretations – by

saying that the ―ages‖ had ended in Christ‘s death, and the things the Jewish writings claimed for

the future Messianic Kingdom were in fact already possible for those in Christ. Thus when 1 Enoch

5:7,8 speaks of ‗freedom from sin‘ coming then, Paul applies that phrase to the experience of the

Christian believer now (Rom. 6:18–22; 8:2).

Law of sin- as lamented in Rom. 7:23,25.The law of sin there refers to the principle of sin within us

that keeps on beating us, winning the struggle against our weak spirituality. But even this has been

overcome because of the status we have ―in Christ‖ and by the work of the Spirit this involves.

The New Testament develops the theme of ‗living in the spirit‘. We can often understand ‗spirit‘ in

the NT to mean the dominant desire, the way of life, the essential intention, the ambience of a man‘s

life. The idea of life in the Spirit is often placed in opposition to that of living under a legal code.

We are asked to live a way of life, rather than mere obedience to a certain number of specific

propositions. And yet whilst we are free from legal codes, we aren‘t free to do as we like. We are

under ―the law of the spirit‖ (Rom. 8:2), ―the law of Christ‖ (1 Cor. 9:21). The law of Christ isn‘t

only His specific teaching, but the person of the real, historical Jesus. This is the standard of appeal

which should mould the spirit of our lives. We must live ―according to Christ‖ (Rom. 15:5; Col.

2:8), and the character of Jesus is the basis of Paul‘s appeals to us to live a spiritual life (Rom.

15:3,7,8; 1 Cor. 11:1; Eph. 5:2,25; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Thess. 1:6).

8:3 The law- i.e. obedience to the Law.

could not do- s.w. in Romans only at Rom. 15:1: ―We then that are strong ought to bear the

infirmities of the weak‖, those who ‗can not‘. The connections between the doctrinal and practical

sections of Romans are so frequent that this link too is surely intended. The ―weak‖ Paul had in

mind were therefore the Jewish believers who still trusted in the Law; patience with the legalistic,

acceptance of those whose faith in Christ‘s grace is weak, bearing with the ungracious, is really the

test of our Christ-likeness. For He does this with us so very often.

Weak- s.w. Mt. 25:36 ―sick‖. Our attitude to the weak / spiritually sick is our attitude to Christ

personally- because amazingly, they especially represent Him. ―Weak through the flesh‖ is surely

alluding to the essence of what Paul has been writing in Romans 7- that our flesh is so weak. The

implication is that our weakness is related to an attitude that keeping the Law would lead to

justification. And this in turn confirms my suggestion that Romans 7 is a section specifically written

to first century Jewish converts who had once been under the Law of Moses.The same word occurs

179

in Rom. 5:6- when we were ―without strength‖, weak, Christ died for us. Our weakness, our

spiritual weakness, is therefore no barrier to God‘s love and Christ‘s devotion to us. Amazing, but

true.

God sending- the connection with Phil. 2:7,8 suggests this ‗sending‘ was specifically in the

crucifixion. Likewise God so loved the world that He gave His Son to die on the cross (Jn. 3:16).

In the likeness of sinful flesh seems to be parallel with ―in the likeness of men‖ and ―in fashion as a

man‖ (Phil. 2:7,8). ―Sinful flesh‖ refers therefore to ‗sinful humanity‘, rather than implying that we

are sinful and offensive to God simply by reason of being human beings. The spotless lamb of God

had full human nature, He looked like a man because He was a man, and therefore He looked just

like the same men who regularly perform sinful actions. Whatever we say about ‗human nature‘, we

say about the Lord Jesus- for He bore our ‗nature‘ and yet was holy, harmless, undefiled, and

separate from sinners. It‘s actually very hard to Biblically define what we mean by ‗human nature‘;

it‘s not some intrinsic piece of ‗sin‘ that somehow is metaphysically ingrained into us, upon which

the wrath of God abides. So I prefer to speak rather of ‗the human condition‘ to avoid this

impression. In passing, let‘s get it clear that Rom. 8:3 doesn‘t speak of something called ‗sin-in-the-

flesh‘. Students as varied as John Carter and Harry Whittaker [in The Very Devil] have faithfully

pointed out that this is neither grammatically nor contextually correct. The Lord Jesus condemned

sin; and where and how did He condemn it? In ―the flesh‖, in that He too lived within the nexus of

pressures and influences of this sinful world. He appeared just another man, so much so that when

He stood up and indirectly proclaimed Himself Messiah, those who knew Him were amazed;

because He had appeared so very ordinary. Truly He was in ―the likeness of sinful flesh‖, yet

without personal sin. See on 2 Cor. 7:1.

It could even be argued from Rom. 8:3 ("in the likeness of sinful flesh") that the Lord Jesus

appeared to be a normal sinful human being, although He was not a sinner (see on Jn. 2:5,10). This

would explain the amazement of the townspeople who knew Him, when He indirectly declared

Himself to be Messiah. Grammatically, "it is not the noun "flesh" but the adjective "sinful" that

demands the addition of "likeness"" [F.F. Bruce, Paul And Jesus (London: S.P.C.K., 1977) p. 78.].

He appeared as a sinner, without being one. Of course we can conveniently misunderstand this, to

justify our involvement with sinful things and appearing just like the surrounding world, in order to

convert them. But all the same, it was exactly because the Lord Jesus appeared so normal, so closely

part of sinful humanity, that He was and is our Saviour and compelling example. I have elsewhere

argued that Rom. 8:3 is alluding specifically to the Lord's death, where He was treated as a sinner,

strung up upon a tree like all those cursed by sinful behaviour, although in His case He was

innocent.

Rom. 8:3 speaks of the Lord Jesus as being ―in the likeness of sinful flesh‖ in order to achieve our

redemption. The Greek word translated ―likeness‖ elsewhere is used to express identity and

correspondence- not mere external ‗appearance‘ (consider its usage in Rom. 1:23; 5:14; 6:5; Phil.

2:7). Scholars, even Trinitarian ones, are generally in agreement on this point. Two examples, both

from Trinitarian writers commenting upon this word in Rom. 8:3: ―Paul consistently used ―likeness‖

to denote appropriate correspondence or congruity. Thus Paul affirmed Jesus‘ radical conformity to

and solidarity with our sinful flesh (sarx)‖. ―The sense of the word (likeness) in Rom. 8:3 by no

means marks a distinction or a difference between Christ and sinful flesh. If Christ comes en

homoiomati of sinful flesh, he comes as the full expression of that sinful flesh. He manifests it for

what it is‖.

The total identity of the Lord with our sinfulness is brought out in passages like Rom. 8:3,

describing Jesus as being ―in the likeness of sinful flesh" when He was made a sin offering; and 1

Pet. 2:24, which speaks of how He ―his own self… in his own body" bore our sins ―upon the tree".

Note that it was at the time of His death that He was especially like this. I believe that these

180

passages speak more of the Lord‘s moral association with sinners, which reached a climax in His

death, than they do of His ‗nature‘.

―For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in

the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin‖ (Rom. 8:3) – cp. Gal. 4:4–5, ―Made of a

woman, made under the Law (cp. ―sinful flesh‖) to redeem them that were under the Law‖. The

drive of Paul‘s argument in its primary context was that having been baptized, they should leave the

Law, as that was connected with the sin from which baptism saved them – it introduced them to

salvation by pure grace in Jesus. The Hebrew writer had the connection in mind when he wrote of

―carnal ordinances‖ (Heb. 9:10; 7:16). To be justified by the Law was to be ―made perfect by the

flesh‖, so close is the connection between Law and flesh (Gal. 3:2,3). ―We (who have left the

Law)... have no confidence in the flesh (i.e. the Law). Though I might also have confidence in the

flesh...‖ (Phil. 3:3–4), and then Paul goes on to list all the things which gave him high standing in

the eyes of the Law and the Jewish system. These things he associates with ―the flesh‖. See on Col.

2:14.

Likeness- s.w. Rom. 6:5, we are planted together in the ―likeness‖ of Christ‘s death. His being made

like us is to be responded to by our being made like Him, starting in a baptism into His likeness.

Sinful flesh- these two words have just been used together by Paul in Rom. 7:25 [also Rom. 7:5], in

lamenting how in our ‗flesh‘ status, we seem to so easily serve sin as our master. The Lord Jesus

had our nature, the same struggle against a tendency to unspirituality, egged on by living in a social

environment where sin is everywhere and ever present.

For sin- The Greek peri hamartias ―is the Septuagint‘s technical term for the sin offering‖ (Stephen

Finlan). It should be better rendered as ―for a sin offering‖.

Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Atlanta, GA:

Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).

Condemned sin- as a judicial action, the passing of sentence, s.w. Mk. 14:64 ―they all condemned

Him to be worthy of death‖. This is how and why there is no condemnation for those in Christ (8:1).

In the earlier chapters of Romans, Paul likened us as standing ashamed and condemned in the dock

before the judgment seat of God; but then declared right, justified, by grace. And if we believe in

that grace, it shall be true for us at the final judgment. But here the image changes slightly- for it is

―sin‖, not just ourselves personally, which was condemned on the cross by the fact that Christ died

there as a human who never yielded to sin. Remember that someone or something can be

―condemned‖ by someone else in the sense that that person shows the condemned party to be in the

wrong in comparison with their behavior, e.g. Noah condemning the world around him (Mt.

12:41,42; Lk. 11:31,32; Heb. 11:7). It was perhaps in this sense that the Lord condemned sin by His

sinlessness and obedience unto death. The context of this phrase ―condemned sin‖ in 8:3 is to be

found in 8:1- there is ―no condemnation for those who are in Christ‖, and Paul is explaining why-

because not only have they been declared right, but as ―in Christ‖, all that is true of Him becomes

true of us. He was not only uncondemned by sin, but He went onto the offensive- and condemned

sin.

8:4 Righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us- Paul explores how in fact we have been

declared righteous, justified in a legal sense. All that is true of Christ becomes true of those who are

in Him. He perfectly fulfilled the Law, and I have suggested earlier that this in a sense entitled Him

not to have to die. No longer was Adam literally everyman; there was one Man, the Lord Jesus, who

did not sin like Adam did. The righteousness or ―requirement‖ of the Law was ultimately love, love

unto death, even the death of the cross. Both ―love‖ and Christ‘s death on the cross are elsewhere

stated to be the fulfillment of the Law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). We who have broken the Law are

counted as in Christ, and therefore we are counted as having fulfilled it to its‘ ultimate term- love

unto the death of the cross. The passive verb form of ―might be fulfilled‖ suggests that we are

181

reading here about something being done for or in us; the fact it is fulfilled ―in us‖ rather than by us

confirms that we aren‘t reading here some exhortation to do the righteousness of the Law, but rather

a statement about what has been fulfilled in us- by the representative death of Christ for us and our

identification with it. Thus we are changed by status from being condemned lawbreakers to being

counted as having ultimately fulfilled it. In a clearly parallel passage in terms of thought, 2 Cor.

5:21 says that God made Christ ―sin‖ for us ―that we might be made the righteousness of God in

Him‖. The Law was fulfilled in the perfect character of the Lord Jesus and finally in His death.

Baptism into death means that we are counted as having died with Him- and therefore we too

fulfilled the Law to perfection.

Who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit- cannot mean, given the context, that our righteous

‗walk‘ fulfills the Law- for we stand condemned by it. Rather is this again a reference to the two

spheres of life- flesh and Spirit, Adam or Christ, out of Christ or in Christ, condemned or justified.

We are to ―walk‖, to practically live, in the sphere of the Spirit. I am inclined to interpret the idea

of ―walk after‖ as meaning ‗to be occupied with‘, as the Greek is indeed elsewhere translated in the

AV. If our orientation is around the Spirit and not the flesh, then we are demonstrating that indeed

our change of status has been for real. Because we are ―in Christ‖, the righteousness of the Law is

fulfilled in us insofar as it was fulfilled in Christ and has been counted to us.

Paul states that because of the Lord's death "as an offering for sin", thereby the 'commandment

["requirement" RVmg] of the Law is fulfilled in us' (Rom. 8:3,4). But in the practical part of that

same letter, Paul defines the requirement / commandment of the Law to be one thing- simply "love"

(Rom. 13:10). Love as God understands it is that we keep or fulfil His commandments (1 Jn. 5:3).

What, then, is the connection? How could the Lord's death on the cross lead to the fulfilment in us

of the Law's commandment / requirement of love? Quite simply, because it is now impossible for a

man to be passive before the cross, and not to be inspired by Him there towards a life of genuine

love. Paul isn't simply making some mechanistic, theological statement- that the cross fulfilled the

Law, because it fulfilled all the types etc. It fulfilled the Law in that the Law intended to teach love;

and the cross and dying of the Lord Jesus is now the means by which we can powerfully be inspired

to the life of love which fulfils the entire Law.

8:5 Do mind- this is the crucial definition of whether we are in the Spirit status or that of the flesh.

The definition of ‗minding‘ the things of God or of the flesh is therefore important. The Lord Jesus

rebuked Peter for ‗savouring‘ the things of men rather than God (Mt. 16:23); Phil. 4:10 translates

the word as ‗to care for‘, Col. 3:2 as ‗affection‘. Being spiritually minded isn‘t therefore a question

of not sinning- for Romans 7 has made it clear enough that believers do continue sinning after

baptism and yet can still confidently rejoice in hope of the final redemption. It‘s rather a question of

wanting spiritual things, loving them, savouring them, having them in our heart, just as Paul could

say that in his heart he loved and rejoiced in God‘s law, although in practice he continued sinning.

This I believe is where most believers stand. So loving, admiring and delighting in spiritual things,

but feeling bad because their flesh still so easily gives way to temptation. That failure isn‘t

excusable, for Paul began Romans by pointing out that the perfect, sinless Lord Jesus all the same

lived in our flesh.

After the Spirit- as in ―after the flesh‖, the Greek word kata is used. This really means in this kind of

context ‗to be concerned with, to be around, in the sphere of‘. This is exactly the idea we have been

trying to express- we are to be concerned with, have in our hearts, the Spirit rather than the flesh.

8:6 Carnally minded… spiritually minded- the definition of ‗walking after‘ the flesh or spirit spoken

of in 8:5. If we are in the sphere or realm of the Spirit, of Christ, then we will think about those

things in our hearts. If we have believed, known to be true and felt the truth of those things which

Paul has so far explained- we will have these things uttermost in our hearts, be enveloped by them. I

take what Paul writes here to be a description of our status, rather than a command to be spiritually

minded rather than carnally minded. For by status we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit

182

(8:9). This fits the context of the argument so far in Romans- which has always been about a change

of status, and our living in ever growing appreciation of that status change that has occurred. The

mind of the flesh ―is death‖, here and now; whereas the mind or phronema of the Spirit ―is life‖

here and now. Phronema means the inclination, the purpose, the intention. It doesn‘t mean that we

will consciously think of spiritual things all the time (not that this is any bad aim or desire). Rather

our intentions, inclinations, should be to the Spirit and not the flesh.

8:7 The mind of the flesh- this is defined in 8:5,6 as the mindset which inclines to flesh rather than

Spirit; that reads novels rather than God‘s word; than thinks of money and cars and holidays and

restaurants and fine clothes and expensive jewellery... rather than the things of God‘s people and

His service. That willingly thinks about banality rather than the things of Jesus and the Spirit. That

doesn‘t really think much about the things of God‘s Kingdom but rather the things of this world.

This kind of mindset is hatred towards God. So says Paul. This is the mindset of those who are in

the flesh status, who mind the things of the flesh (8:5). Note that Paul is here talking mindsets, not

total sin nor total righteousness. This kind of mindset of the flesh can never be ―subject‖ to God‘s

law, His principles, His Spirit. It is self-centred rather than God centred. Yet the same Greek word

for ―subject to‖ occurs in Rom. 8:20, where we read that we have been subjected beneath the state

of vanity which there is in this fallen world, and yet we in Christ have been subjected to this in

hope. The point is, whatever sense we have of being ‗subjected under‘ the things of the flesh and

indeed this present world, this is involuntary. It‘s not what our real self would wish for. We have

subjected ourselves under the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3), become servants to that wonderful

concept that His righteousness has been imputed to us. We find ourselves therefore in subjection to

this righteousness and yet involuntarily living in subjection to the sinful state we find ourselves in.

8:8 In the flesh- not so much in status, for we are all still ―in the flesh‖ in the sense Paul describes in

Romans 7. Paul is surely speaking of being fleshly minded, having a mindset which is of the flesh

not the Spirit. This simply cannot please God.

Please God- the Greek definitely suggests that God Himself has emotions which can be excited.

And this is an amazing idea- that we here on earth, so very far from Him in so many ways, can

touch the heart of God. Notice that the other references to ‗pleasing‘ in Romans are to pleasing our

neighbour (Rom. 15:1-3)- our attitude to God, and His pleasure in us, is related to our attitude to our

neighbour and our pleasure in him or her.

8:9- see on Rom. 6:12.

Not in the flesh but in the Spirit- by status, by position. Note from 1 Cor. 3:16 that believers, even

those who have the gifts of the Spirit, can still be ―carnal‖ or fleshly in some aspects of their actual

behaviour. Hence Paul must be talking here in positional terms.

If so be- could imply that Paul doubted whether some of his readership really were in the sphere of

the Spirit. However, this would contradict the entire tone of this section and the argument so far-

that all those baptized into Christ must be considered by us as unquestioningly ―in the Spirit‖. It

would also jar with the otherwise positive tone Paul takes towards the Roman believers, speaking in

8:12 as if ―we‖, he and his readership, are all in the same status. ―If so be‖ can be read quite

comfortably as meaning ‗Seeing that‘. This is how it is translated in 2 Thess. 1:6, ―Seeing that it

is…‖. We can be assured that our status is ―in the Spirit‖ rather than ―in the flesh‖ by the fact that

the Spirit dwells in us. If we don‘t have the Spirit of Christ, then we are not ―his‖- and the Greek for

―his‖ would I suggest better be translated ―Him‖, or even ―He himself‖. We are reckoned as Christ

Himself because we are in Him by faith and baptism into Him. His Spirit is counted as our spirit, in

the sense that His character, His personality, His totally obedient mind, are counted as ours. So we

aren‘t so much as reading that we had better ensure we are spiritually minded and have the mind of

Christ; we are being assured that we can be sure we are ―in Him‖ because we are counted as Him,

His perfect mind and character, His spirit, are counted as ours. Hence Paul can write with such

183

confidence that ―we have the mind of Christ‖ (1 Cor. 2:16). We do not in fact think like Him, at

least, our mind and spirit are not of themselves like His were and are. But His mind / spirit is

counted to us, because of our status in Him. And ―the spirit of God‖ is paralleled with the spirit of

Christ in the sense that Jesus was perfectly like God in the way He thought, felt and acted. And this

is counted to us. We thereby have also the mind of God counted to us- the family spirit is counted to

us as we have been adopted into that family of Father and Son (Rom. 8:15).

8:10 Christ in you- parallel with the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ (8:9) and ―the spirit‖ later

here in 8:10. Paul is now exploring what it means to be ―in Christ‖. It‘s not just that we opted into

Him through baptism; He is in us as much as we are in Him. ―Christ in you‖ is an idea Paul

elsewhere uses (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27). The exposition of the Spirit

which follows in Romans 8 is further insight into what it means to be ―in Christ‖, to be declared

right by God, and to believe it insofar as believe into Christ by baptism. The words ―in‖ and

―Christ‖ have been frequently used already by Paul in describing us as ―in Christ‖. But there‘s a

mutuality in our position- we are in Him, but He is also in us. Whilst we need exhortation to live as

―in Him‖, Paul here isn‘t exhorting us- rather is he rejoicing in our status, and seeking to persuade

us of it. ―If Christ be in you‖ shouldn‘t be read as something uncertain- the idea is clearly ―Seeing

that Christ is in you‖.

The body is dead because of sin- because we are in Christ and He is in us, our body is counted as

His dead body. The idea has been common throughout Romans 6- because of our baptism into Him,

we are ―dead to sin‖ (6:2), ―he that is dead is freed from sin‖ (6:7), ―truly we are dead to sin‖ (6:11).

It‘s as if the day of judgment has come already for us- it was the day of our baptism into Christ. We

have sinned and so were counted as if we had already died. How did we die? In that we

symbolically connected ourselves with the death of Christ. In going under the water, therefore, we

not only align ourselves with Christ‘s death; we also state our recognition that we have sinned, and

that sin brings death. Through doing so, we are enabled to rise again with Christ- as if our final,

literal justification in resurrection to eternal life will just as surely take place. In this sense, it can be

said that baptism is related to salvation. Not that dipping in water as a ritual can itself save anyone,

but because that association with the death and resurrection of Christ really does save- involving as

it does a willing recognition of our sinfulness and just condemnation, and only thereby resulting in a

part in the resurrection. All this indicates the importance of repentance before baptism; it outlaws

any kind of infant baptism, and likewise any attempt to claim a consciously performed baptism into

the Lord‘s death and resurrection, after repentance, is in any sense invalid and requires rebaptism by

other hands.

But the Spirit is life because of righteousness- surely uses ―righteousness‖ in the way it has been

earlier used in the letter, with reference to the righteousness of Christ which is reckoned to all those

in Him. It is from the Spirit that we shall reap life eternal when Christ returns (Gal. 6:8), but through

association with the death and resurrection of Jesus in baptism, His righteousness really is counted

to us. But as His spirit is counted to us, so in a sense it does actually become our spirit- as Paul has

been saying in Romans 7, although in the flesh we sadly do sin, yet in our spirit, which is the spirit /

mind of Christ, we delight in God‘s law.

We feel at home with Paul's matchless confession of his innate tendency to sin, so strong that

"When I would do good, evil is present with me... how to perform that which is good I find not".

Yet it is no accident that this dire recognition of the seriousness of our spiritual position in Romans

7 should lead straight on to Romans 8, one of the most positive passages in all Scripture. It is

instructive to trace the parallels between these two chapters. For example, Paul's lament "I am

carnal" (Rom. 7:14) is matched by "To be carnally minded is death" (8:6). His argument in Romans

6-8 runs along these lines: 'We are all carnally minded by nature; but Christ had our nature, yet

achieved perfection. If we are in Christ by baptism and by His spirit/disposition being seen in us,

then God will count us as Christ, and will therefore raise up our bodies to immortality, as His was'.

184

The fact we still retain the old nature in this life means that we will be aware of the tremendous

conflict within us between flesh and spirit. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin"

(Rom. 8:10). Paul obviously didn't mean that we would not have the power of sin active in our

natures any more- the preceding chapter 7 makes that crystal clear. The obvious connection with

Rom. 6:11 explains the point: "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin". The apostle

recognized his own innate sinfulness and spiritual failures which were solely his own fault ("When I

would do good...‖, Rom. 7), yet he was confident of salvation (Rom. 8). This was because he

intensely believed in Christ's perfection, and that he was in Christ, and that at baptism he had

received the condemnation of death which he deserved. "There is therefore now no condemnation to

them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). There is the certainty of salvation.

8:11 But if the Spirit- seeing Paul is talking about positions, status, and rejoicing so positively about

it all, it seems appropriate to chose the equally valid translation ―Seeing that the Spirit…‖.

The Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus dwells in you- as often in the NT, the Spirit of God is

paralleled with the spirit of Christ which was mentioned in v. 10 and previously. Interpretation

becomes difficult largely because of the very wide range of meaning in the word ―spirit‖. I don‘t

mean so much that the same word has many different meanings, but rather that within that one word

is a range of meaning. God‘s ―spirit‖ refers to both His power and His mind, His thinking, His

attitude, His character, personality. All He does is a reflection of His mind, just as human actions,

the use of human ‗power‘, is a reflection of the spirit within the person. Hence to think thoughts is

judged by God as if the action has been done. The spirit of God and the spirit of Jesus are therefore

parallel- because Jesus was at one with the Father. Yet as His prayer of John 17 demonstrates, that

unity of spirit between the Father and Son is now shared with us who are in Him. It was the Spirit of

God which raised up Jesus from the dead, and that same spirit / disposition of mind is counted to us,

and is indeed in us- Paul has said this in Romans 7, where he rejoices that despite his lamentable

practical failures, in his heart, in his spirit, in his deepest person, he is without doubt with God and

delights in His ways. Paul, and all true believers, have a heart [or, a spirit] for God- despite the

failures of the flesh. So the spirit / personality of Jesus- which is and was the very essence of

righteousness- is counted to us, as if we are Him; and yet in our deepest selves, as believers, His

spirit is in fact our spirit. Because this spirit within us is the spirit of Jesus and God, we can be

assured of a resurrection like Christ‘s- for the spirit of God raised up Christ from the dead, and we

have identified with that hope through baptism into His death and resurrection. The spirit / mind of

God is also His power; not naked power, like electricity, but a power which is at one with His mind,

which acts in congruence with what He really thinks and is, without posturing or hypocrisy. It‘s

therefore the case that since that spirit dwells in us- because we are in Christ and His spirit is

counted as ours, and because we have a spirit / heart for God as outlined in Romans 7- therefore we

shall surely be raised from the dead as Christ was. This is what Paul has said in Romans 6; but he

explains here on what basis that happens. It happens on the basis of the spirit of God, or the spirit of

Christ, which is counted as ours, and which is in fact actually ours within our deepest heart, the

weakness of the flesh notwithstanding. The spirit of God is not just a mental attitude, it is also His

power, and it was that same spirit which raised the dead body of Christ from the dead. And it shall

do the same for us at the last day.

Quicken your mortal bodies- Paul‘s expectation and assumption seems to have been that Christ

would return in the lifetime of his readership, and that instead of dying and being resurrected, they

would come before the judgment seat of Christ in their current mortal bodies, and then be changed.

He hints at the same when he speaks of how mortality shall be swallowed up of life, and our present

―vile body‖ shall be ―clothed upon‖ but not, he hopes, dissolved in death (2 Cor. 5:4). How could

Paul, writing under inspiration, make an apparent mistake like this? I suggest that he was writing as

if the return of Christ was imminent, because that is how we should live; part of the Christian life is

to live as if we expect His return imminently. Another option is that perhaps the second coming was

indeed scheduled for the first century; but the failure of various human preconditions resulted in this

185

not happening and it being deferred [perhaps issues like the repentance of Israel, the spiritual

maturity and unity of the body of Christ, or their spreading of the Gospel and making converts from

all nations].

The Spirit of Jesus, His disposition, His mindset, His way of thinking and being, is paralleled with

His words and His person. They both ‗quicken‘ or give eternal life, right now. ―It is the Spirit that

quickeneth [present tense]… the words that I speak unto you, they are [right now] spirit, and they

are life… thou hast [right now] the words of eternal life‖ (Jn. 6:63,68). Yet at the last day, God will

quicken the dead and physically give them eternal life (Rom. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:22,36). But this will be

because in this life we had the ‗Spirit‘ of the eternal life in us: ―He that raised up Christ from the

dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by [on account of] his spirit that dwelleth in you‖ (Rom.

8:11). The NT describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved"; our

innermost being, our essential spiritual personality, who we really are in spiritual terms, will as it

were be immortalized (1 Pet. 1:9; 1 Cor. 5:5). This means that our spiritual development in this life

is directly proportional to the type of person we will be for evermore. If, for example, we develop a

generous spirit now, this is "a good foundation" for our future spiritual experience (1 Tim. 6:19).

This is a stupendous conception, and the ultimate fillip to getting serious about our very personal

spiritual development. Our mortal bodies will be changed to immortal, Spirit nature bodies

according to the Spirit which now dwells in us (Rom. 8:11 Gk.). The attitude which we have to the

Lord Jesus now will be the attitude we have to Him at the day of judgment (Mt. 7:23 cp. Lk. 6:46).

8:12 We are debtors- note the positive tone Paul takes towards the Roman believers, speaking here

as if ―we‖, he and his readership, are all in the same status. Given the wonderful certainty of our

salvation, we can‘t be passive. The Greek translated ―debtor‖ is usually translated ‗sinner‘ in the

sense of having a debt to God. Paul has said that his debt is to preach the Gospel to others [1:14

s.w.]. The fact we truly shall be raised to eternal life, have been counted right, as having the spirit of

Christ Himself- cannot be merely passively accepted. We have a debt to live appropriately, and one

aspect of that debt is to share the great hope with others. And in our personal lives we likewise

cannot be passive to this great salvation. We must make some realistic effort to bring our life spirit

into conformity with the spirit and works of the Father and Son. We cannot go on living for the

flesh, just indulging ourselves.

Not to the flesh, to live after the flesh - This verse is really saying the same as Rom. 6:1- we cannot

continue living fleshly lives on the basis that we shall be saved by grace anyway. This is a repeated

concern of Paul‘s- that his bold, positive message that we who are in Christ shall be saved by grace

regardless of our works could so easily be misunderstood, leading to passivity and sin rather than

the vigorous, joyful practical response which is really the only thing we can do if we really ‗get it‘.

The practical section of Romans uses the same word in saying that Gentile believers have a debt to

help their poorer Jewish brethren (Rom. 15:27). Be it in preaching the Gospel or in practical care for

others, we are paying back our debt to God through paying to others- as if the debt to Him has been

transmuted, and we are to pay Him back through giving to others, both spiritually and practically.

8:13 For if you live after the flesh, you shall die- Paul happens to use this same phrase ‗to live after‘

in describing his life ‗living after‘ Judaism (Acts 26:5). As he has implied elsewhere in his

argument, to live according to law, hoping for justification by works, is in fact not spiritual but

fleshly. Again, the point is made that legalism doesn‘t defend the law and curb sin, rather does it

encourage unrighteousness and spiritual failure.

you shall die- note the change from the otherwise positive spirit earlier in this section [―we‖]. As all

believers have the ―mortal body‖ of which Paul spoke in Rom. 6:12, it would seem that Paul is here

threatening some kind of spiritual death; or, ‗you shall die eternally at the coming day of judgment‘.

He starts to balance out all his positive talk with this warning that we cannot just continue in sin,

unaffected by the change in status and justification we have received by grace. Perhaps Paul here is

alluding to the serpent‘s lie: ―You shall not surely die‖, and putting the record straight again.

186

Mortify- see on Rom. 8:14 led by the Spirit.

You shall live- yet the whole tenor of Paul‘s argument has been that it is not by steel willed battle

against the flesh that we shall attain the life eternal. He laments in Romans 7 that we simply don‘t

have that strength of ourselves, but rather are we saved by our status in Christ. We ―shall live‖ only

because of the life of Christ being given to us at our resurrection, because we are in Him. The deeds

of the body are therefore ‗mortified‘ not in our own strength- as Paul makes clear in Romans 7, we

simply lack the power to do this- but on account of the Spirit. We are made dead to the law by our

participation in the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4 s.w.). Here in 8:13 we learn that we mortify the flesh

by ―the Spirit‖. The spirit of Christ in this sense is Christ personally. Hence ―the spirit‖ is used as a

title of Christ later in this chapter (Rom. 8:26,27). ―The spirit‖ isn‘t defined, i.e. as to whose spirit it

is- because the spirit / mind of God is that of Christ and is that which is to be found in the believers.

So I suggest the idea is that we shall live ―if‖, or ‗because of the fact that‘, the Spirit- the Lord

Jesus- puts to death the deeds of the flesh in that we are in Him, and in Him was no sin, no deed of

the flesh. His death on the cross is counted as our death- several usages of the Greek verb ―mortify‖

used here are actually speaking of the death of Christ on the cross (Mt. 26:59; 27:1; Mk. 14:55; 1

Pet. 3:18). And significantly, the word occurs a little later in Romans 8- ―For [Christ‘s] sake we are

killed [‗mortified‘] all day long, we are counted [s.w. imputed, reckoned as] the sheep for the

slaughter [i.e. Christ on the cross]‖ (Rom. 8:36). So we are counted all day long as mortified, put to

death, with Christ; for we are counted, 24/7, as being in Him, counted as the sacrificial lamb. His

dead body becomes ours. It is in this way that through / on account of our being in ―the Spirit‖, ―the

Lord the Spirit‖ (2 Cor. 3:18), we have the deeds of our flesh put to death. As Romans 7 labours,

this doesn‘t mean that we will not commit the deeds of the flesh. But we have identified ourselves

with Christ, with His body, and in this sense those deeds of the flesh are rendered meaningless.

8:14 Led by the Spirit- the Greek may not imply mere guidance but something stronger- the Spirit

leading us where it choses. The same word is used about animals being led. It is the Spirit which

mortifies the deeds of the body (8:13) more than us doing so. We want to know, of course, whether

we really are ―in Christ‖, whether we really have His spirit. The phrase ―led by the spirit‖ is found

only in Lk. 4:1, where the Lord Jesus was led by the spirit into the place of testing. Perhaps the

connection is intentional. As Jesus the son of God, the protypical child of God, was led by God, into

testing, to the cross, and to resurrection- so it will operate in our lives and lead us, who are also the

sons of God. The overall impression may be of allowing the Spirit, which operates in the lives of all

in the sphere of the Spirit, to lead us and do things in our lives. We who have a heart for God have

surely sensed God leading us, over and above our own will; and as Paul goes on to develop, this

may involve elements of predestination and Divine calling which were over and above our own will

to control. Sensing these things, this Divine leading, is an encouragement that truly we are God‘s

sons, as Jesus was supremely- for the spirit of the Father works in us His children. In the context,

Paul has been arguing that for those in Christ, His death becomes theirs. The Greek word for ―led‖

is repeatedly used about the ‗leading‘ of God‘s Son to His death (Lk. 22:54; 23:1,32; Jn. 18:28;

19:4,13), ―led as a sheep to the slaughter‖ (Acts 8:32). We have commented under 8:13 that 8:36

speaks of all those in Christ as likewise being ―the sheep for the slaughter‖. Every detail of the

Lord‘s death and sufferings becomes ours. ―Led by‖ could just as well be rendered ―led in the

Spirit‖, with reference to Christ as ―the Lord the Spirit‖. This would suggest that our status ―in

Christ‖ means that we are going to be treated like Him- led as He was, to testing, to the death of the

cross, to resurrection. Paul many times during his trials was ―led‖, just as Christ was. This same

Greek word occurs many times in the Acts record regarding Paul. He wrote here from personal

experience.

They are the sons of God- not in the sense that the Spirit makes us sons of God, but that the children

of God are characterized (among other things) by the Spirit leading them. ―Sons of God‖ would‘ve

been understood by the Jewish readers and hearers as a phrase referring specifically to Israel (Ex.

4:22; Jer. Jer. 3:19; 31:9; Hos. 11:1); Paul‘s emphasis is that now all in Christ and within the sphere

187

of the Spirit are now God‘s children, regardless of their ethnicity. But above all, all who are ―in‖ the

Son of God (Rom. 8:3), in Christ by baptism, are likewise therefore ―sons of God‖. The spirit that

was in Christ must therefore be in us, or rather, be allowed to work in and with us. This phrase is

preparing the way for the appeal to be conformed to the image of God‘s Son which is coming up in

Rom. 8:29.

Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing (Lk. 4:1); and Paul uses just those words of us in

our present experience of trial (Rom. 8:14). His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a

living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (Heb. 4:15,16).

8:15 Not received the spirit of bondage- ―bondage‖ is associated with the Mosaic law in Gal. 4:24;

5:1; Heb. 2:15.

To fear- the contrast is between bondage [slavery] and adoption; and therefore between fear and

‗crying Abba, Father‘. The fear Paul has in view must surely be the fear of not being good enough,

the phobia about rejection at the day of final judgment. This fear of rejection is associated with

bondage to a legalistic system, of obeying rules in order to seek acceptance with God. Such a

system is itself bondage, slavery. And the image of slavery has been used by Paul with reference to

slavery to sin. Once again, he associates sin with legalism and attempted justification through

obedience to the Law- for this is where that mindset leads in practice. The implication seems to be

that although Paul‘s readership had received the ―spirit of adoption‖, yet they still feared. Paul is

seeking to convince them of their high status in Christ, and to perceive, to the point of it affecting

their feelings [e.g. of fear or otherwise], that really- it‘s all true. The good news that seems too good

to believe is really as good as it sounds.

Spirit of adoption- the fact we have become sons of God [see on Rom. 8:14] by means of being in

Christ, the Son of God, means that God will send His Spirit into our hearts, to make us more natural

members of the family we have now joined by status. Gal. 4:6 thus speaks of how ―God sent forth

the spirit of His Son into our hearts‖. Thus our hearts have to become transformed to be like that of

His Son. This can be so successful that we even call to God as Abba, daddy. Note that the Spirit and

our hearts are connected- this Spirit works on the human heart, miraculous gifts aren‘t in view here.

The NRSV renders: ―When we cry, ‗Abba! Father!‘, it is that very spirit bearing witness‖ (8:15,16).

The feeling we have toward God as Abba is proof enough that He has sent His Son into our hearts.

The obvious question is begged: Is that how we feel? God wants us to feel like that towards Him.

We can and should be able to! This is one of the most bottom line questions for us as believers; not

what theological position we have on this or that point, not what precise statement of faith we

follow with what clarifications or caveats, addendums or ammendments; not whom we fellowship;

not how smartly we have lived our lives even. But whether we really feel to God as Abba, Father. If

it takes a woman three divorces or another man 10 years in prison or another a lifetime‘s battle with

alcohol- this is the end point to which we are being brought. This is the ―witness‖ that we really are

God‘s dear children, if we feel like that toward Him, if we can call Him ―Abba, daddy‖ just as the

Son of God did in prayer. If we do, then ―the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are

the children of God‖ (8:16). And Gal. 4:6 becomes so true of us: ―God has sent the Spirit of His Son

into our hearts, whereby we cry, Abba, Father‖. Roman law legislated that the adopted child took

over the full identity of the adoptive father; what was true of that family became legally true of the

adopted person- a concept which was apparently foreign to Greek and Jewish culture, but the

concept would‘ve been appreciated specifically by the Romans. The idea is similar to the concept of

righteousness being ―imputed‖.

There is only one Spirit- the spirit of God, of Christ, of the true believer, of adoption- is all the

same. The statement here that those in Christ received ―the spirit of adoption‖ must therefore surely

be paralleled with the frequent comments elsewhere in the NT that the believer has ―received‖ [s.w.]

the Spirit at conversion, just as the apostles ―received the Holy Spirit‖ (Jn. 7:39; 14:17; 20:22; Acts

1:8; 2:33,38; 8:15,17; 10:47; 19:2; 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 3:2,14). Whilst the apostles had

188

their receipt of this gift confirmed by miraculous displays of Holy Spirit gifts which have now been

withdrawn, the assumption is clear from that list of verses that after ―the hearing of faith‖ and

baptism into Christ, the Spirit was ―received‖ (Gal. 3:2 etc.). Baptism was seen as bringing about

the receipt of this gift (Acts 19:2; Gal. 3:14 cp. 27-29). When we became ―in Christ‖ at baptism, we

were counted as Christ. Just as He called God ―Abba‖, so we can. The way Jesus addressed God in

this way is wonderful, indeed beautiful. It almost seems inappropriate that this personal relationship

of the Son to the Father, calling Him ―Daddy‖, should be observed by us even; and yet now Paul

says that it has been applied to us, seeing we are truly ―in Him‖. We have received such an

extraordinarily realistic ―spirit of adoption‖ that really, as Jesus was God‘s Son, so are we. Through

the work of the Spirit, even the virgin conception and birth of the Lord Jesus is now no barrier

between Him and us; for in essence, our spiritual rebirth and adoption as God‘s children is such that

we too are God‘s very own children just as He was. Our excuse for not fully following Him is that

‗Well He was a bit different to us, you know… virgin birth and all that‘. If we grasp what Paul is

saying, this now has far less validitiy. For the same Spirit which caused the virgin conception is

what has birthed each believer, and through the spirit of adoption we too can feel towards God as

―Abba‖, just as His Son did. The unity between Father and Son has now been realized between the

Father and all His children; the prayer of John 17 to this effect has now been answered. At least,

potentially, and if we will accept the answer. And yet, it has to be said that we do not feel to God as

Jesus did. The Lord Jesus could not have written the bitter lament about spiritual failure which we

find in Romans 7. As we have often concluded, the answer is that we are asked to believe that really

we are indeed ―in Christ‖, and seen, counted and felt towards by God as if we really are His beloved

Son.

Whereby we cry- ―whereby‖ can be rendered ―in whom‖. Because we are in Christ, we have His

spirit, God‘s Spirit. We ―cry‖- in allusion to how in Gethsemane, the Son of God ―cried‖ to God as

―Abba‖. He there really can be our pattern. The Greek for ―cry‖ really means to scream or croak-

the idea is very much of a baby or young child crying out to ―daddy‖.

Abba - In prayer, we address God as Abba, Father- precisely because ―God has sent the Spirit of His

Son into our hearts, whereby we cry, Abba, Father‖ (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). I take these passages to

refer to the way successful prayer involves the spirit / will of a believer becoming united with the

Spirit / will of the Father and Son. Gal. 4:6 says that it is the Spirit of Jesus who prays to God

―Abba, Father‖; but Rom. 8:15 says that it is us of course who pray to God ―Abba, Father‖. We are

not slaves but God‘s very own dear children. The spirit / will / mind of the Lord Jesus is therefore

seen as the mind of the believer. And thus Paul could write that it was no longer he who lived, but

Christ who lived in him (Gal. 2:20). The whole of the new creation groans or sighs in our spirit; and

Jesus, the Lord the Spirit groans in prayer for us too. God‘s Spirit is to dwell in us, right in the core

of our hearts (Rom. 8:11; Gal. 4:6).

"We cry Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), as our Lord did then (Mk. 14:36). We can, we really

can, it is possible, to enter into our Lord's intensity then. Paul saw his beloved brother Epaphroditus

as "heavy" in spirit (Phil. 2:26), using a word only used elsewhere about Christ in Gethsemane (Mt.

26:37; Mk. 14:33). Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in

mind in their sufferings, as we can also do (Acts 21:14 = Mk. 14:36). I have wondered, and it‘s no

more than me wondering, whether it could be that Rom. 10:9,13; Acts 22:16 and the other

references to calling on the name of the Lord at baptism imply that the candidate for baptism made

the statement ―Jesus is Lord!‖ after their confession of faith or just before their immersion, and then

they shouted the word ―Abba! Father!‖ as they came out of the water, indicating their adoption as a

child of God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

Biblical prayers rarely request things; if we ask according to God's will, we will receive (1 Jn. 5:14);

and yet if God's word dwells in us, we will ask what we will, and receive it (Jn. 15:7). Thus if our

will is purely God's will, we will receive answers to every prayer. That our will can be God's will is

189

another way of saying that our spirit can be His Spirit. This is why several passages speak of how

God's Spirit witnesses with our spirit (Rom. 8:15,16,26; 1 Jn. 3:24; 4:13). It's why the early church

sensed that not only were they witnessing to things, but the Holy Spirit of God also (Acts 5:32;

15:28). His Spirit becomes our spirit.

Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains

why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was

no specific verbalizing of requests (Ps. 5:1,2; 6:8; 18:1,2,3,6; 40:1; 42:8; 64:1 Heb.; 65:1,2; 66:17-

20; Zech. 8:22). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: 1 Sam. 1:10;

Ps. 39:12; 55:1,2; Jn. 11:41,42; Heb. 5:7, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms.

"The Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will

receive my prayer" (Ps. 6:8,9) crystallizes the point. Desire is also seen as effectively praying for

something (Rom. 10:1; Col. 1:9; 2 Cor. 9:14). Weeping, desiring, waiting, meditating etc. are all

acts of the mind, or 'spirit' in Biblical terminology. There is therefore a big association between our

spirit or state of mind, and prayer. The spirit (disposition) of Christ which we have received leads us

to pray "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). "Praying in the holy spirit" (Jude 20) is to be seen in

this context. Prayer is part of the atmosphere of spiritual life, not something hived off and separate-

it is an expression of our spirit. Thus there are verses which speak of many daily prayers as being

just one prayer (Ps. 86:3,6; 88:1,2); prayer is a way / spirit of life, not something specific which

occurs for a matter of minutes each day. The commands to "pray without ceasing" simply can't be

literally obeyed (1 Thess. 5:17). "Watch and pray always" in the last days likewise connects prayer

with watchfulness, which is an attitude of mind rather than something done on specific occasions.

This is not to say that prayer in no sense refers to formal, specific prayer. Evidently it does, but it is

only a verbal crystallization of our general spirit of life.

8:16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God- see on 8:15 spirit

of adoption. The Greek can be read as ―The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit, that we are the

children of God‖. But the idea seems to be of a joint witness- our spirit is in fact the Spirit, and bear

witness [in a legal sense] that we are really God‘s children. As we have observed several times,

there is only essentially one Spirit- God‘s, Christ‘s, the believer‘s, are all the same spirit. Paul uses

the same idea in Rom. 9:1, where he asserts that his conscience [and he may as well have said his

spirit, for the idea of essential, inner personality is the same] bears joint witness [s.w. 8:16] with the

Holy Spirit. God‘s personality, His Spirit, is congruent with the person who has a spirit / heart for

God. This meeting of minds between God and the believer is what confirms to us that we really are

His children. Being His beloved children isn‘t dependent upon our moral perfection- we must keep

remembering that we are reading the words here in their context as the extension of what Paul was

saying throughout Romans 7:15-25.

Paul here reverts to the image he used in chapter 3, of us for a moment acting as the judge (3:4),

deciding whether God‘s promises and claims about us are in fact true, or lies. Our own spirit and

God‘s Spirit bear legal witness- to whom? To us as the judges. They both testify, that really we are

the children of God. Not only is the spirit of Christ, His righteousness, counted as ours; but God‘s

spirit / mind really is ours in experienced reality. Thus we are joint witnesses in the box together,

and v. 17 will develop this theme- joint heirs, joint sufferers, and thus jointly glorified together. All

because of our connection with Him, we are counted as Him. Note how Paul seems to be aware of

the huge doubt there would be about these things in the hearts of the baptized believers to whom he

writes; and such doubt is with us today. Hence the enormous relevance and power of what he writes,

and the need he felt to appeal to detailed intellectual argument in order to prove his point time and

again.

Imputed righteousness is given us on the basis of our faith. This means that insofar as we can

believe all this is true, so it will be. In this sense ―The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,

190

that we are the children of God‖ (Rom 8:16). We are His dear children (Eph. 5:1), the pride and joy

of Almighty God, counted as wonderful and righteous by Him.

Personal Bible reading and reflection are so important; for there the individual finds the essence of

God‘s will and strives to make it his or her very own. This is how we can come to understand Rom.

8:16, which says that in prayer, God‘s Spirit bears witness with our spirit that is within us. Thus

even although ―we do not know how to pray for as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes for us‖

(Rom. 8:26). The Spirit of the Father and Son speaks in us when we pray (Rom. 8:15), if our will /

spirit is theirs. To put this in more technical but I think very telling terms: ―The subject-object

scheme of ‗talking to somebody‘ is transcended; He who speaks through us is he who is spoken to‖.

It‘s perhaps the thought behind Mt. 10:20: ―It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father

speaking through you‖. This is why Paul can thank God that he finds himself praying constantly for

Timothy (2 Tim. 1:3)- because he recognizes that not only can we influence God by our prayers, bur

He influences us in what we pray for.

8:17 Children… joint heirs- very much the ideas of Gal. 3:27-29, where Paul taught that baptism

makes us the children of God and join-heirs with Christ of what God promised Abraham. For all

that is true of Christ becomes true of us. If He was the seed of Abraham, then so are we; and what

was promised to the seed personally thus becomes true for us all. Again, Paul is seeking to explain

to the Romans the significance of their baptisms.

The law taught that the firstborn was to have a double portion above his brethren. But we are made

joint-heirs with Christ, the firstborn (Rom. 8:17). This is yet another paradox of grace. Likewise in

the parable of the prodigal son, both sons receive equal inheritance, rather than the elder son getting

more.

If so be that we suffer with Him- again, ―if so be‖ is a misleading translation. This phrase is common

in this part of Romans. It an indeed mean ―if so be‖, but the idea is equally of ―seeing that…‖,

―although…‖- and this is how it is commonly translated elsewhere. The good news Paul is teaching

is almost unbelievable, too good news- and it was for the translators too, who for the most part have

chosen to give a ‗conditional‘ feel to the message by inserting all these ―if…‖ statements as if they

are conditions. But this impression contradicts the colossal positivism which Paul has, positivism

expressed in the face of his own admission of failure in Romans 7; and such translation also fails to

give due weight to the idea of positions, status ―in Christ‖ as opposed to in Adam, which is so

fundamental to Paul‘s argument. Because we are in Christ, we are joint heirs with Him; and seeing

that we suffer with Him, we shall be also glorified with Him in that we will share in His

resurrection. This is the very teaching of Romans 6:3-5; baptism into His death and resurrection

means that for sure we will be resurrected as He was. Note that we co-suffer with Christ right now-

which suggests that He also in some sense suffers in this life, the essence of His cross is lived out in

His experience even now, as He suffers with our sufferings, and we with His. The only other time

this Greek word for co-suffering occurs is in 1 Cor. 12:26- we co-suffer with the sufferings of other

members of the body of Christ. This is one way in which ―we suffer with Him‖- to have an

empathetic mind. Whilst we must strive for this, Paul‘s point is more that we do suffer with Him,

because we are in Him; just as in Romans 6 he has demonstrated that we suffered, died, were buried

and rose again with Christ, because we are ―in Him‖.

The suffering and groaning of which Paul speaks in Rom. 8:17, 22-26 could have specific reference

to the ‗groaning‘ he has just been making about his inability to keep the Mosaic Law. Our

helplessness to be obedient, our frustration with ourselves, is a groaning against sin which is

actually a groaning in harmony with that of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, who makes intercession for

us with the same groanings right now (Rom. 8:26). Indeed, those groanings are those spoken of in

Heb. 5:7 as the groanings of strong crying and tears which the Lord made in His final passion. In

this sense, the Spirit, the Lord the Spirit, bears witness with our spirit / mind, that we are the

children of God (Rom. 8:16). This clinches all I am trying to say. Our inability to keep the Law of

191

God leads to a groaning against sin and because of sin, which puts us into a unity with the Lord

Jesus as our Heavenly intercessor in the court of Heaven. But that wondrous realization of grace

which is expressed so finely in Romans 8 would just be impossible were it not for the conviction of

sin which there is through our experience of our inability to keep the Law of God. Our failure and

groaning because of it becomes in the end the very witness that we are the children of God (Rom.

8:16). God thereby makes sin His servant, in that the experience of it glorifies Him.

8:18 I reckon- s.w. to count, impute. As God counts us as in Christ, imputing us as having suffered

and died with Him, we too in our turn must impute this to ourselves; and if we do, then we will

realize that if our present sufferings are in fact seen by God and imputed by Him as being a part in

the sufferings of Christ- then we can truly rejoice in the certainty that we will surely share in His

resurrection life. If God counts us as He does, we should count ourselves that way too, and have

feelings and emotions which are appropriate to such an exalted position.

The sufferings- elsewhere Paul emphasizes that if we are ―in Christ‖, then His sufferings become

ours in the same way as His glory and victory become ours too. The tribulations of Rom. 8:35 could

therefore be understood specifically as aspects of Christ‘s sufferings, with Rom. 8:36 likening us in

our sufferings to the sheep for the slaughter, which spoke of Christ facing the cross. See on Rom.

7:5. The only other time in Romans that Paul uses the word here translated ―sufferings‖ is in Rom.

7:5, where he speaks of ―the motions [s.w. sufferings] of sin‖. He may be implying that even the

sufferings caused by our sins are part of the sufferings which connect us to Christ- for His sufferings

were directly because of His bearing of our sins. This is a very profound thought- that even the

sufferings of our sins serve only to connect us to the sufferings of Christ, in a mutual bond; for He

suffered because of our sins. And for those in Him, our connection with His sufferings is the

guarantee of our resurrection to glory with Him.

Glory which shall be revealed- the contrast between present suffering and future glory is common in

Jewish texts. But they all tended to emphasize that the individual who does righteousness will

receive personal glory (e.g. Apocalypse of Baruch, 2, 15:8). Paul is saying that the glory to which

we look forward is a sharing in the glory of Christ in a material way. This glory exists now in that

Christ exists glorified, but that glory must yet be revealed in us literally (1 Pet. 5:1).

Revealed in us- the ―glory‖ is something internal, rather than referring to some unusually Divine

light or cloud of shekinah glory, as imagined by 1st century Judaism and many others today. The

Greek for ―revealed‖ carries the idea of revealing, taking the lid off something to expose it. We are

in Christ and He is thereby in us- the whole thing has a mutual quality to it. He dwells in us not only

in that His righteous character, His spirit, is counted to us- but in actual fact, it is placed within us.

This is the ―spirit‖ which Paul will go on to claim is in fact within us. It doesn‘t mean we are

thereby made righteous in our actual thoughts and actions- for he has bitterly lamented in Romans 7

that this isn‘t actually the case. At the day of judgment, when we share in the Lord‘s resurrection

just as surely as we have in this life shared in His sufferings, that glory, that spirit, that personality

within us shall be revealed openly. Perhaps Peter uses flesh and spirit in the same way that Paul

does, when he says that believers are ―judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to

God in the spirit‖ (1 Pet. 4:6), just as Jesus was likewise judged (1 Pet. 3:18). We are considered by

our peers as mere human beings, they may even judge us for the kind of failures in the flesh which

Paul admits to in Rom. 7:15-25. But God judges us according to the ―spirit‖, the fact that the spirit /

character of Christ is counted to us, and in some hard-to-define sense is in fact latently placed

within us. And this of course is how we should seek to perceive our weak fellow believers.

8:19 Manifestation of the sons of God- could imply that the believers aren‘t really revealed for who

they are in this life. This shouldn‘t encourage our hypocrisy nor the idea that we can be a believer

whose faith is invisible to the world; but it‘s some comfort too. Because we look, smell, speak and

act identically, for the most part, to the unbelievers around us. The huge difference in status and

192

position has to be perceived by faith alone in this life. This ―manifestation‖ is the same word as used

in 8:18, ―revealed‖- see notes on 8:18.

Earnest expectation of the creation- the whole of creation is somehow looking forward to the

revelation of the Christ that is within us. Christ, the spirit of Christ, is concealed deep within our

flesh and will be manifested at the last day, even though we as it were feel the baby kicking, as Paul

describes in Rom. 7:15-25 when he speaks of the two persons struggling within him. On a different

scale, we are as it were concealed deep within the creation, as the seed, the germ, which will sprout

forth into the full Kingdom of God when Christ returns. All that is material and fleshly, this present

system, will no longer conceal the Christ within us personally, and on a global scale it will no

longer conceal us, who we really are. This element of hiddeness explains why we simply cannot

judge others. Here in this closing section of Romans 1-8 there also seems a connection of thought

with the opening section of Romans 1-8, where Paul wrote of how the invisible things of God which

were as it were hidden within creation are in some sense declared to those who know God (Rom.

1:20)

8:20- see on Rom. 8:7.

The creation- given the way Paul writes of ―they‖ as opposed to ―ourselves‖ in 8:23, the creation

here perhaps refers to all peoples (or maybe even, all created things) apart from the believers.

Subject to vanity- the connection with the opening of the entire section in Romans 1 continues.

There Paul used the same word to describe how sinners ‗become vain‘ (Rom. 1:21). They willingly

glory in the fallen state of creation, seeking out every opportunity to gratify sinful desires. Although

we are indeed ―subject to vanity‖, we don‘t need to in our own turn ‗become vain‘. If we can be

made free from the daily grind in order to serve God, let us chose it. Let‘s not fill our minds and

lives with the things of basic human existence, gathering food, reproducing, indulging sexual desire.

In one sense, as part of God‘s creation, we are subject to vanity- and perhaps that‘s why Paul uses

the same word in the practical section of Romans to say that we ―must needs be subject‖ to worldly

powers (Rom. 13:1,5). By doing so we accept how things are in creation at this time. The idea of

submission is quite a theme in Romans. Our natural mind, the status / person ―in Adam‖, isn‘t

submissive to God‘s law and never can be (Rom. 8:7); the natural creation, of which our fleshly,

human side is a part, is subject, in submission to, vanity. Yet we are to submit ourselves- our real

selves- to God‘s righteousness (Rom. 10:3).

Not willingly- continues the parallel between the believer in Christ‘s fallen and weak state, and the

state of the entire creation. Again, this is a development of the theme of Rom. 7:15-25- that we sin

because of our weakness in dealing with the state we find ourself in, but our sin isn‘t willful- it is in

fact committed not willingly, ―that which I would / will not‖ (Rom. 7:19).

Him who has subjected the same in hope- a reference to God. This is a major deconstruction of the

popular idea of ‗Satan‘, who was and is supposed by many to be the one who has tied the world

down under the consequences of sin. But it is God who has done the subjecting, and therefore He

has done it ―in hope‖, which He will be the One to bring to realization.

8:21 The creation itself also- Ultimately, the creation will share the deliverance which we

personally experience now and shall experience in its final term at the Lord‘s return. The whole of

creation earnestly looks forward to the manifestation of the sons of God. The whole of creation was

made "subject to vanity, not willingly" - it was not their fault that the curse came upon them. "The

whole of creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together", longing to share in the manifestation in

glory of God's spiritual creation. The sadness and bitterness of the animal creation is due to their

longing for that day of "the glorious liberty of the children of God" in which they will share.

193

Shall be delivered- the same word has been used by Paul in speaking of how even now, we have

been delivered from slavery to sin and death by becoming ―in Christ‖ (Rom. 6:18,22; 8:2). The

same word is also used about our having been made free from slavery to the Mosaic Law (Gal. 5:1),

which connection could suggest that the ―creation‖ here has some specific reference to the entire

Jewish system.

From the bondage- Gk. ‗slavery‘. The idea of being in slavery to sin and the Law has been common

in Paul‘s argument so far. The believer in Christ is saved from such slavery- and God‘s long term

plan is that the entire creation will share in this redemption too.

Corruption- used by Paul in Col. 2:22 with special reference to the Law of Moses. But he also uses

the word in explaining how our present corruptible body shall be changed to incorruption when

Christ returns (1 Cor. 15:42,50). The whole creation will be changed and redeemed as we personally

will be. In this sense the work of the Lord Jesus will bring about the creation, or re-creation, of a

new earth without the results of Adam‘s sin. His achievement on the cross in this sense saved the

world and not just the believers.

Into the glorious liberty of the children of God- The redemption and freedom from corruption which

the believers shall experience will be experienced by all of creation. When at the end of Romans 11

Paul appears to rejoice in the totality and universality of Divine redemption in Christ, he may well

have this in mind. Not that all human beings who have ever lived will be saved, but rather that the

whole of creation, in a physical sense, will be saved / delivered just as the believers will have been.

Our freedom is ‗of glory‘ in the sense touched upon in Rom. 8:18- the glory of the character of

Christ which is latent within us but which is yet to be revealed openly. Paul always uses the Greek

word used here for ―liberty‖ to exalt how believers in Christ have been set free from the Jewish law

(1 Cor. 10:29; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 2:4; 5:1,13). He clearly has this at least as a subtext in his argument

here, encouraging us to wonder whether by ‗all of creation‘ he has in view ―all Israel‖. In this case,

his argument would be brought to its full term in Rom. 11:26, when he exalts that finally ―all Israel

shall be saved‖. When Paul speaks of ―all [AV ―the whole‖] creation‖ in Rom. 8:22, this is the same

word translated ―all‖ in Rom. 11:26. They will finally share in the blessed redemption made

possible by the Messiah whom they crucified, they will also experience the glorious liberty from sin

and the Law which was the strength of sin, which was exalted in by those like Paul whom they

persecuted and reviled. For it is those who received Jesus as Christ rather than rejected Him as did

the Jews, whom the NT styles ―the children of God‖ (Jn. 1:12).In this sense, Paul in this very

context notes that the Jews under the Law are not the true ―children of God‖- but the believers in

Christ are (Rom. 9:8).

This ―liberty‖ in which the NT so frequently exults (Lk. 4:18; 1 Cor. 10:29; Gal. 2:4; 5:13; James

1:25; 2:12; 1 Pet. 2:16) will be fully revealed in the freedom of the Kingdom: ―the glorious liberty

of the children of God‖ (Rom. 8:21). As it will be then, so now: we will not be free to do what we

like morally, but within the context of God‘s covenant, we are free, totally and utterly free, in our

service of Him.

8:22 The whole creation – Gk. ―all‖ creation, s.w. Rom. 11:26 ―all Israel‖. See on Rom. 8:21.

Groans together- Groans together with whom? Perhaps the idea is that creation together, all parts of

it, groan together. But I suggest the groaning is together with us and the Lord Jesus. The Greek for

―groan‖ is used about the groaning of the Lord Jesus in intercessory prayer in Mk. 7:34. The

believers in Him likewise groan in awaiting the change of our nature which shall come at Christ‘s

return (2 Cor. 5:2,4). This is the groaning we have heard throughout Romans 7:15-24, groaning at

the hopelessness of our position as sinners. Paul perceived [―for we know‖, Gk. ‗perceive‘] that he

wasn‘t alone in his groaning, but there is even within the natural creation some premonition that a

redemption is yet to come, and a groaning in discontent at the present situation. Thus he didn‘t

perceive nature as at peace with itself, as many today naively imagine. Rather is it groaning with us.

194

And if we follow up Paul‘s hints that ―all creation‖ has some reference to ―all Israel‖, their groaning

which he perceived would have been in terms of ‗not having found that which they sought after‘, as

he put it in Rom. 11:7; they sought righteousness but didn‘t find it (Rom. 9:31). They were looking

for the right thing in the wrong places and by the wrong way. And yet their groaning, our groaning,

the groaning perceived in the natural creation, are in fact but birth pangs- we groan and travail in

pain together. The birth which this leads to is the new day of God‘s Kingdom, the final birth of the

Spirit which believers in Christ have experienced in prospect through baptism. And again, Paul‘s

subtextual reference to the bankruptcy of the Law to save is still there, for the only other time he

uses this word for ―travail‖ is in his allegorical comment that Judaism is barren and doesn‘t travail,

and yet the true Zion is in travail, groaning to bring forth many children (Gal. 4:19,27). And yet he

is perhaps hinting that just as the Jews subconsciously knew that Jesus was Messiah [―this is the

heir, let us kill him‖], so the Jewish system was in fact groaning and travailing towards the bringing

forth of faith in Christ. The same idea of travailing in birth pangs is to be found in the descriptions

of the situation just before the return of Christ (e.g. 1 Thess. 5:3). The significance of Paul‘s

emphasis that this is happening ‗right up until now‘ might then be a hint that he expected the return

of Christ imminently. However, as previously touched upon in this exposition, it could be that Paul

believed we should live as if the return of Christ is imminent; he therefore interpreted prophecy,

Scripture and contemporary situations in that manner, just as we should. The groaning of creation

and of ourselves also is therefore but the prelude to something far better- the actual birth at the

second coming of Christ. My own interpretation of the radical changes in natural phenomena on

earth at this time is that it‘s all an indication that creation is indeed groaning, now as never before,

in a subconscious pleading for the Lord‘s return.

Groans and travails- a reference to natural disasters and the animal violence which there is within

this fallen world?

Our groanings, our struggling in prayer, is transferred to God by the Lord Jesus groaning also, but

with groanings far deeper and more fervently powerful than ours (Rom. 8:22,23 cp. 26). See on

Rom. 8:17; Col. 2:1.

Romans 8 teaches that there is in fact just one Spirit; the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God, and is

"the Spirit" in the believer (Rom. 8:9-11). There is "one Spirit" (Eph. 4:4). If the will of God is in

us, if His will is embedded in our conscience, we will ask what we will, what our spirit desires, and

it will be granted. This is because if our Spirit is attune with the Spirit of God and of Christ, our

desires, our wish, is transferred automatically to Him. Whatever we ask being in the name of Christ,

being in His character and the essence of His spirit, will therefore be done (Jn. 15:16). It doesn't

mean that saying the words "I ask in the name of Christ" gives our request some kind of magical

power with God. It must surely mean that if we are in Him, if His words abide in us, then we will

surely be heard, for our will is His will. We are guaranteed answers if we ask in His name, if we ask

what we will, if the word dwells in us, if we ask according to God's will... all these are essentially

the same thing. If we are truly in Him, if the word really dwells in us, if our will has become merged

with God's will, then we will only request things which are in accordance with His will, and

therefore we will receive them. Thus the experience of answered prayer will become part of the

atmosphere of spiritual life for the successful believer. The Lord knew that the Father heard Him

always (Jn. 11:42). It is for this reason that the prayers of faithful men rarely make explicit requests;

their prayers are an expression of the spirit of their lives and their relationship with God, not a list of

requests. It explains why God sees our needs, He sees our situations, as if these are requests for

help, and acts accordingly. The request doesn't have to be baldly stated; God sees and knows and

responds. This is why Romans 8 appears to confuse the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ in the

believer, and Christ himself as "the Lord the Spirit". Yet what Paul is showing is that in fact if we

are spiritually minded, if our thinking is in harmony with the Father and Son, prayer is simply a

merger of our Spirit with theirs; the idea of prayer as a means of requesting things doesn't figure,

because God knows our need and will provide. The whole creation groans; we ourselves groan

195

inwardly; and the Spirit makes intercession with groans that can't be uttered. Clearly enough, our

groans are His groans. He expresses them more powerfully and articulately than we can. It has been

observed: "As I read Paul's words, an image comes to mind of a mother tuning in to her child's

wordless cry. I know mothers who can distinguish a cry for food from a cry for attention, an earache

cry from a stomachache cry. To me, the sounds are identical, but the mother instinctively perceives

the meaning of the child's nonverbal groan. It is the inarticulateness, the very helplessness, of the

child that gives her compassion such intensity". In deep sickness or depression it can simply be that

we find formal, verbalized prayer impossible. Ps. 77:4 speaks of this: "I am so troubled that I cannot

speak" (formally, to God). It's in those moments that comfort can be taken from the fact that it is our

spirit which is mediated as it were to God. Tribulation is read as prayer- hence even the Lord's

suffering on the cross, "the affliction of the afflicted", was read by the Father as the Lord Jesus

'crying unto' the Father (Ps. 22:24). This is sure comfort to those so beset by illness and physical

pain that they lack the clarity of mind to formally pray- their very affliction is read by the Father as

their prayer.

8:23 Not only they but ourselves also... even we ourselves- A fair emphasis by Paul on the fact that

our groaning are in some sort of harmony with the groaning of all creation. If we understand ‗all

creation‘ as ―all Israel‖, Paul‘s emphasis on the commonality of our groaning together would be as

if to say ‗Jews and Christians aren‘t that far apart really; we are united by our groanings‘. And he

argued the same at the opening of his argument in Romans 1-3; that Jew and Gentile are united by

the desperation of their sinfulness, their common need for redemption.

Which have the firstfruits of the Spirit- I have explained earlier that Paul is teaching that the spirit or

personality / mind of Christ is counted to us by imputed righteousness; but more than that, the Spirit

of Christ is actually placed within us, although that spirit of Christ which dwells within us is latent,

hidden beneath the flesh and failures of which Paul speaks in Romans 7. As we are in Christ, so He

is in us, indwelling us by His Spirit. Clearly enough, the resurrected Christ is the firstfruit (1 Cor.

15:20,23), and we shall only be the firstfruits ―afterward... at his coming‖. Yet because all that is

true of Christ is true of we who are counted in Him, we too are the firstfruits. ―The Spirit‖ could

refer to Christ personally, ―the Lord the Spirit‖ (2 Cor. 3:18 RVmg.).

Groan within ourselves- Paul writes this in explanation of his groaning within himself which is

outlined in Rom. 7:15-24.

Waiting for- The Greek rather carries the idea of expecting. For if we are in Christ, His sufferings

counted as ours and ours as His, then our ultimate salvation is assured. We are therefore expecting

it, rather than waiting to see what shall happen at His return.

The adoption, the redemption of our body- Continuing the image of adoption which was introduced

in 8:15. We have already received the spirit of adoption. We are adopted unto God for the sake of

our being in Christ, the supreme Son of God (Eph. 1:5). We are God‘s adopted children in that we

are in Christ, the ultimate child of God. But as has been lamented in Romans 7, our body, our flesh,

is still as it is, unredeemed, and in practice unable to be subject to God‘s law. We with Paul and

with all creation, groan for redemption from this situation. Gal. 4:5 speaks of the death of Christ as

being required ―to redeem that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons‖. The

ideas of redemption, adoption and ―sons‖ are repeated. So although we have attained such adoption

as God‘s sons in that we are in His Son by status, we long for the physical manifestation of that

redemption which we have received- and we groan for it. Note that ―the adoption of sons‖ isn‘t

sexist language; it is as sons that we are adopted rather than as daughters or androids because we are

counted as in God‘s Son, Jesus, who happened to be male. We are counted as Him. The status we

have received in Him is one of redemption, we are labelled as it were ―redeemed‖. We in Christ

have already received this redemption by grace (Rom. 3:24). He is ―redemption‖ and we are in Him

(1 Cor. 1:30). Consistently Paul speaks of ‗redemption‘ as being ―in Christ‖ (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14),

and we have been baptized into Him and are counted in Him, as Paul has laboured throughout

196

Romans so far. But our bodies still need that redemption, and we await / expect it at the Lord‘s

return. Eph. 1:14; 4:30 likewise speak of ―the day of redemption‖ as the second coming of Christ,

and yet urge us to believe that we ―sealed‖ by our receipt of the Spirit, as a guarantee, that this day

will really come for us. The ―spirit‖ referred to is the same as here in Romans 8- the indwelling of

Jesus personally within all them who are ―in Him‖, and the counting of His spirit to them by

imputed righteousness.

Adoption… redemption- just as our minds have received the spirit of adoption, so our bodies will be

transformed at the final judgment into a body like that of Jesus (Phil. 3:20,21).

8:24,25 Saved by hope- Better translated as ―saved in hope‖. God‘s grace and the blood of Christ,

believed in by faith, are what saves, rather than hope of itself. We have been saved, but in hope- for

the fullness of salvation will only be revealed when Christ returns. As commented under 8:23, we

have been redeemed, but the redemption of the body is our expectation at the second coming. Note

that the Greek for ―hope‖ means a confident expectation- the English ‗hope‘ tends to carry a

somewhat less confident flavour of meaning, the implication being that we ‗hope for the best‘ rather

than confidently await. But because we are saved in Christ, our hope is certain. Likewise the Greek

translated in this section as ―wait‖ better translates as ‗confidently await‘. We‘re not waiting to see

what happens, but rather awaiting with confidence what must surely come for us- the redemption of

our body. Anything less than this approach wouldn‘t have left Paul pulling out of his groaning

within himself of Romans 7 with the confident cry of rejoicing, the scream in the night, of Rom.

7:25- that he has indeed found the way of escape and deliverance through Christ. Jesus personally is

―our hope‖ (1 Tim. 1:1). And we are in Him. But we don‘t physically see Him yet, nor physically

have we seen the redemption of our bodies. We therefore wait, or await confidently, the fulfilment

of the hope which is now reserved for us (Col. 1:5).

Why does Paul labour his point here- that we don‘t have [―see‖] what we know is coming for us,

therefore we must patiently wait for it? Maybe to encourage patience in the waiting- perhaps the

crux of his argument in these verses is on the word ―patience‖. But maybe he is back to addressing

the old worry which he know lurks in every reader: Why, then, am I still such a sinner right now,

today? Given that reality, how then can I so confidently await the future redemption? And Paul‘s

answer is that yes we have been redeemed, but no we don‘t see that redemption physically, no, we

don‘t yet see it, but we are patiently awaiting it in confidence. Despite all our weakness and failure

in the flesh. Our waiting is paralleled with the awaiting of all creation for the manifestation of

God‘s children [the same word is used in Rom. 8:19,23,25]. The New Testament associates this

‗waiting‘ with the faithful awaiting of Christ‘s return (s.w. 1 Cor. 1:7; Gal. 5:5; Phil. 3:20; Heb.

9:28). Yet here in Romans we are awaiting the manifestation of ourselves as the sons of God (Rom.

8:19). Christ is us and we are Him, if we are in Him and He in us. His manifestation or ‗coming‘

(s.w. 1 Cor. 1:7, we wait for the manifestation / coming of Christ) will be the same as the

manifestation of the sons of God, all those who are in Him. His manifestation will therefore be ours;

His glory shall be manifested in us in that day [s.w. Rom. 8:18] just as He personally shall be

manifested. And thus we read that in a sense, Christ shall return with all those who are in Him with

Him; for the faithful shall be snatched away to meet Him in the air, as clouds (1 Thess. 4:17), and

then He shall come to earth with clouds, of the faithful believers (Rev. 1:7). In this sense the second

coming of Christ is likened to the new Jerusalem, the spotless bride of Christ, coming down from

Heaven to earth (Rev. 21:2). His manifestation is ours, for all that is true of Him is true of us. Our

hupomone [‗joyful endurance‘, AV ―patience‖] in awaiting the return of Christ is therefore possible

because we are awaiting our redemption. We can only joyfully await His coming [and hupomone

can carry an element of ‗joy‘ within the wide flavour of its meaning] if we are confident that His

coming means our redemption rather than our judgment to condemnation. If our attitude to the

return of Christ is that we shall only then find out, only then will our destiny be sorted out- then we

are of all men most fearful and uncertain. But clearly enough for those in Christ, His revealing

197

physically to the world shall be our revealing. His coming is going to be ours. ―For thee he comes,

His might to impart, to the trembling heart and the feeble knee‖.

8:26 Likewise also- A phrase hard to interpret in this context. The sense may be more of ―And even

moreover‖, ―even so‖; ―And now guess what, even more...‖ might be the dynamic sense. That apart

from us having a wonderful hope which we confidently await, it‘s not all jam tomorrow. The spirit,

both as the Lord the spirit, i.e. Jesus personally, and also as His spirit which indwells us, is actively

at work even now.

The Spirit- a title for Christ personally. See on Rom. 7:14.

Helps our infirmities- ―helps‖ occurs in the LXX of Ex. 18:22 and Num. 11:17, where Moses is the

one helped. Paul is suggesting that each believer can rise up to the pattern of Moses; he was no

longer to be seen by Jewish believers as some distant, untouchable, stellar example of devotion. He

was a pattern that through the Spirit could be realistically attained; although the point is being

cleverly made that he too had weakness that needed Divine help.

Paul made it a credo of his own life, and urged other believers to follow his example in this, that he

would labour to support [s.w. help, Rom. 8:26] the weak (Acts 20:35). For we are all weak, and

helped only by grace. But the Greek word Paul uses for ‗helps‘ also carries the meaning of ‗to

participate it‘. It clearly has this sense in 1 Tim. 6:2, ―partakers [participators in] the benefit‖. The

Spirit participates in our infirmities and thus helps us; just as we should seek to empathize as far as

we can in the infirmities of others, both practical and moral. The ―infirmities‖ Paul has in mind

would seem to be the infirmity of spirit he laments in Rom. 7:15-24; our moral weakness. The same

word is used of how the Lord Jesus in His ministry fulfilled the prophecy of Is. 53:4 that on the

cross He would ‗take our infirmities‘ (Mt. 8:17). These ―infirmities‖ according to Is. 53:4 were our

sins, but sin‘s effect is manifested through sickness. The moral dimension to these ―infirmities‖ has

already been established by Paul in Romans, for in Rom. 5:6 he uses the word to describe how

―when we were yet weak [s.w. ‗infirm‘], Christ died for the ungodly; and he explains his sense here

as being that ―when we were yet sinners‖ (Rom. 5:8). Jesus as the Lord the Spirit engages with our

infirmities, on the plane of the spirit, the deep human mind and psyche. What He did on the cross in

engaging with our moral infirmity He did in His life, and He continues to do for us in essence. He

does not turn away in disgust at our infirmities, rather through His Spirit within us He engages with

them, perhaps deep within our subconscious, beneath our conscious will. The allusion to Mt. 8:17

seems certain- for there we read the same word for ―infirmities‖ and ―took‖ is lambano, a form of

which is used by Paul in saying that the Spirit ―helps‖ our infirmities. We are therefore led to

understand ―the Spirit‖ as a title of Christ personally. That title is used, however, because of the fact

that in this context, His Spirit, His personality, is within us, He personally indwells us within our

spirit; as we are in Christ so He is in us. His strength is perfected through our weakness (s.w.

―infirmities‖; 2 Cor. 12:9). He knows even now the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15; 5:2). If the

Lord Jesus so engages with our weaknesses, we therefore ought to unhesitatingly ―support the

weak‖ [s.w., 1 Thess. 5:14].

What to pray for- Mt. 20:22 = Rom. 8:26. This is an example of where appreciating the links with

the Gospels opens our understanding of Paul's letters. Paul is implying that we are like the mother of

Zebedee's children, in that when we pray, we know not what we ask for in the sense that we don't

appreciate what we ask for. I know what to pray for: my redemption, and that of others. Read

wrongly, Rom. 8:26 implies we haven't the foggiest what on earth to ask God for. But we do know

what to ask for; the point is, we don't appreciate what we are asking for, just as that woman didn't

appreciate what she was praying for when she asked that her two boys would be in the Kingdom.

Pray for- a related word is used in this same context by Paul in Rom. 9:3, where he says that he

―could wish‖, s.w. ―pray‖, that he himself were condemned by God so that Israel might be saved.

His allusion is to Moses‘ prayer that he would be excluded from God‘s book rather than Israel be

198

excluded from the Kingdom. But Paul learnt the lesson from how God responded to Moses- that He

doesn‘t accept substitutionary sacrifice. Paul is admitting he too doesn‘t know how to pray for Israel

as he ought, but he leaves their salvation in the hands of their Saviour, whilst so earnestly desiring it

in his own spirit.

As we ought- We don‘t seem to have within us to pray as we ought, i.e. as we [s.w.] ‗must‘. It‘s not

that we just don‘t know what to pray about; we don‘t pray as we ought to / must, and yet our

gracious Mediator makes intercession with unutterable groans. And the older Paul can lament his

failures to preach as he ―ought", as he must, and therefore he appeals for prayer that he will witness

to the Gospel as every believer of it must (Eph. 6:20; Col. 4:4).

The Spirit Himself- a clear reference to Christ, whose spirit indwells us and is in dialogue with our

spirit on some unconscious level. Our innermost spiritual desires are thereby transferred to God by

our Heavenly mediator. And our innermost desire is to be right with God, to obtain salvation,

deliverance from this body of death and life of spiritual failure. Now we can better understand why

all we are reading here flows on naturally from his groaning of spirit in Romans 7. The Lord Jesus

indwells us, His spirit perceives the spiritual groaning of our spirit, and transfers it as it were to

Himself; for if we are in Christ, then He is in us. And His intercession for us is in that sense

successful; our salvation was obtained on the cross thanks to His own groaning in spirit there, and

this guarantees that He will obtain it for us [the idea of ‗intercession‘, we have noted, includes that

of ‗obtaining‘].

Maketh intercession- A return to the legal metaphors. The Lord Jesus is our interceder, the counsel

for the defence, and also an emotional witness, pleading with groanings to the judge in support of

our case. The Greek for ―intercession‖ cannot be taken too far, but it is derived from the verb ‗to

obtain‘. The obtaining of our salvation, the winning of our case, was achieved on the cross, in the

groanings of Jesus in Gethsemane and on the stake; but in essence, He groans for us still in

intercession, and in doing so, His groaning are in sympathy with our groaning for salvation. The

type of groanings of spirit of Rom. 7:15-24 become the groanings of our Heavenly intercessor. He is

not separate from our frustrations at our failures; He takes them fully on board. The crucial thing is

that we have them; that we can read Rom. 7:15-24 with empathy and know that ‗That‘s me‘. Which

I believe most readers of these words can indeed say.

Groanings - Heb. 5:7 comments that Christ prayed "with strong crying and tears". These words are

certainly to be connected with Rom. 8:26, which speaks of Christ making intercession for us

now with "groanings which cannot be uttered". One might think from Heb. 5:7 that the Lord Jesus

made quite a noise whilst hanging on the cross. But Rom. 8:26 says that his groaning is so intense

that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of

mental striving. No doubt the Lord Jesus was praying silently, or at best quietly, as he hung there.

The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved on the cross for us is

what he now goes through as he intercedes for us with the Father. Heb. 5:7 describes Christ on the

cross as a priest offering up a guilt offering for our sins of ignorance. He did this, we are told,

through "prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears". This must surely be a reference to

"Father forgive them". Those were said with a real passion, with strong crying, with tears as He

appreciated the extent of our sinfulness and offence of God. There is a connection between these

words and those of Rom. 8:26,27, which describes Christ as our High Priest making intercession for

us "with groanings". "Groanings" is surely the language of suffering and crucifixion. It is as if our

Lord goes through it all again when He prays for our forgiveness, He has the same passion for us

now as He did then. Think of how on the cross He had that overwhelming desire for our forgiveness

despite His own physical pain. That same level of desire is with Him now. Surely we can respond

by confessing our sins, by getting down to realistic self-examination, by rallying our faith to truly

appreciate His mediation and the forgiveness that has been achieved, to believe that all our sins, past

199

and future, have been conquered, and to therefore rise up to the challenge of doing all we can to live

a life which is appropriate to such great salvation.

The suffering and groaning of which Paul speaks in Rom. 8:17, 22-26 is in my view a reference to

the ‗groaning‘ he has just been making about his inability to keep the Mosaic Law [see on Rom.

7:18]. Our helplessness to be obedient, our frustration with ourselves, is a groaning against sin

which is actually a groaning in harmony with that of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, who makes

intercession for us with the same groanings right now (Rom. 8:26). Indeed, those groanings are

those spoken of in Heb. 5:7 as the groanings of strong crying and tears which the Lord made in His

final passion. In this sense, the Spirit, the Lord the Spirit, bears witness with our spirit / mind, that

we are the children of God (Rom. 8:16). This clinches all I am trying to say. Our inability to keep

the Law of God leads to a groaning against sin and because of sin, which puts us into a unity with

the Lord Jesus as our Heavenly intercessor in the court of Heaven. Because of this, we are declared

justified, there are no credible accusers, and the passionate intercessor / advocate turns out to be the

judge Himself. Thus through our frustration at our own failure, we are led not only to Christ but to

the certainty of an assured salvation. But that wondrous realization of grace which is expressed so

finely in Romans 8 would just be impossible were it not for the conviction of sin which there is

through our experience of our inability to keep the Law of God. Our failure and groaning because of

it becomes in the end the very witness that we are the children of God (Rom. 8:16). God thereby

makes sin His servant, in that the experience of it glorifies Him. How God works through sin is

revealed in the way that although God always provided food for Israel in the wilderness, He

‗suffered them to hunger‘ for 40 years, in order to try to teach them that man lives not by bread

alone, but by God‘s word (Dt. 8:2,3). The Jews in the wilderness despised the food God gave them

as worthless (Num. 21:3); they went hungry not literally, but in the sense that they despised the

manna of God‘s provision. And He allowed them to have that hunger, in order that He might [try to]

teach them about the value of His word. He didn‘t simply punish them for their ingratitude. He

sought to work through it in order to teach them something. Even the process of rejection results in

the victims coming to ‗know the Lord‘.

Cannot be uttered- In the same way as our inner groanings for salvation, for deliverance from how

we are, are unspoken, rarely verbalized (although Rom. 7:15-24 is a fine exception), so His

intercession for us isn‘t in human words, it‘s a dialogue of the Spirit with God, a meeting of

innermost minds. Our sinfulness and desire to be free from it is articulated through the spirit of

God‘s perfect Son, to the mind or spirit of God Himself. Intercession, therefore, isn‘t a question of

translating words which we say in prayer into some Heavenly language which is somehow

understandable to God, rather like a translator may interpret from one language to another. It is our

spirit which is perceived for what it is and articulated before God. This explains why both in

Biblical example and in our own experience, our unspoken, unformulated desires of the spirit are

read by God as prayers and responded to. I devote a whole chapter in my analysis of ―Prayer‖ to

exemplifying this Biblically, but we should also know it from our own experience. Desires which

we had, above all we asked or thought, are read by God as prayers and responded to. Paul gives an

example of this in saying that Elijah made intercession to God against Israel (Rom. 11:2,3), when

clearly it was his thoughts in this context which were being interpreted as prayer. Perhaps the

statement that the Lord Jesus intercedes for us without human words, in terms which ―cannot be

uttered‖, is intended as a comfort to those who feel they‘re ‗not good at praying‘ because they don‘t

know how to put it all in words. Verbalization skills are hardly a prerequisite for powerful prayer-

because some people are more verbal, better with words, than others.

Rom. 8 speaks of the importance of being spiritually minded, and then goes on to say that our spirit,

our deep inner mind, is transferred to God by Christ, called by His title "the Lord the spirit" ,

without specifically spoken words. This is surely proof enough that the Lord does not mediate our

prayers as an interpreter would, from one language to another, matching lexical items from one

language with those from another. "We know not what to pray for", so the Lord Jesus reads our

200

inner spirit, and transfers this on a deep mental level, without words, to the Father. The whole

process of mediation takes place within the Lord's mind, with the sort of groanings He had as He

begged the Father to raise Lazarus (Rom. 8:26 cp. Jn. 11:38), and as on the cross He prayed with

strong crying and tears for our redemption (Heb. 5:5 cp. Is. 53:12). The Lord Jesus is the same

yesterday and today. That same passion and intensity of pleading really is there. This is why the

state of our mind, our spirit, is so vitally important; because it is this which the Lord Jesus interprets

to the Father.

The Lord's Spirit struggles in mediation with crying and groaning (Rom. 8:26), as He did for the

raising of Lazarus. There is a further connection with Heb. 5:5, where we learn that the Lord prayed

on the cross with a like intensity. And this Lord is our Lord today. He can be crucified afresh,

therefore He has the capacity for struggle and mental effort. The Greek for "groanings" in Rom.

8:26 also occurs in Mk. 7:34: "Looking up to heaven, he sighed and saith unto him, Ephthatha". The

sighing of intense prayer by the Lord was His more spiritually cultured reflection of the number one

desire of that man's spirit, as was His groaning and tears for Martha's desire to be granted, and

Lazarus to be raised. It has been wisely observed that the language of Christ's mediation can be

quite misunderstood. The picture we should have "is not that of an orante, standing ever before the

Father with out-stretched arms... pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God... but that of

a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request‖.

The description of Christ groaning in spirit to transfer our spirit to God (Rom. 8:26) is a reflection

of the fact that we groan for redemption and the coming of the day of the liberty of God's children

(Rom. 8:22,23), when what is guaranteed by "the firstfruits of the Spirit" which we have, will at last

be realized. "All things work together for good" to this end, of forgiveness and salvation. It certainly

doesn't mean that every story ends up happily-ever-after in this life. "We know not what we should

pray for as we ought" (Rom. 8:26) seems to be some kind of allusion back to the mother of

Zebedee's children asking Christ to get her two sons the best places in the Kingdom (Mt. 20:22). He

basically replied 'You know not what you pray for', in the sense of 'you don't appreciate'. It may be

that Paul in Rom. 8 is saying that in our desire for the Kingdom, in our groaning for it, we don't

appreciate what we ask for as we ought, yet Christ nonetheless makes powerful intercession for us

to this end.

Because there is only "one Spirit", even the terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" can be

parallelled because they are manifestations of that same one Spirit: "Ye are... in the Spirit, if so be

that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And if Christ be in you... the Spirit is life... if the Spirit of (God) that raised up Jesus from the dead

dwell in you... the Spirit (Christ, 1 Tim.2:5; 2 Cor.3:18 R.V.) maketh intercession for us" (Rom.8:9-

11,26). See on Jn. 7:39.

8:27 He that searches the hearts- A clear reference to God, whom many Bible passages present as

the One who searches human hearts. God knows and recognizes what the Lord Jesus is ‗saying‘

because He Himself anyway knows the true state of our hearts, searching our motives and the inner

thoughts which lay behind the external actions and words which are judged by men. Hence we can

be judged [harshly] by men according to the flesh, but justified by the God who knows our spirit (1

Pet. 4:6). The ‗searching‘ of human hearts is also done by the Lord Jesus (s.w. Rev. 2:23), as well as

by God. And their findings are of course congruent. In this sense, the intercession of the Lord Jesus

is ―according to God‖ [Gk.], or ―the will of God‖ [AV], or to fill out the ellipsis another way,

‗according to the searching of God too‘.

Knows what is the mind of the Spirit [Jesus]- God who knows our minds knows the mind of Christ

too. Because His mind is our mind, His Spirit is intertwined with, in dialogue with, reflective of, our

deepest spirit in our inner, spiritual person. The hearts / minds of the believers are in this sense the

mind of Christ; for due to our status in Him, ―we have the mind of Christ‖ (1 Cor. 2:16). Thus the

mind of Christ as He comes before the Father in intercession for us is at one with God‘s mind, as

201

well as at one with our mind. In this we begin to see the profound depths, or something of them, of

what it means to be ―in Christ‖, and how, mechanically, if you wish, reconciliation is achieved

between God and man through Christ.

The Lord Jesus does not just transfer our words to God as pieces of language. Seeing that we do not

know how to properly express ourselves to God, He transfers the thoughts of our spirit to God

(Rom. 8:26,27). It is in this context that Paul encourages us to have a spiritual mind in our daily life;

because that is relayed to the presence of God by the Lord Jesus, "the Lord the Spirit‖. Therefore

our whole lives can be a life of prayer, lived out in the presence of the Lord God. However, we are

encouraged to pray with our human words as well; indeed, Scripture is full of examples of men

doing just this.

8:28 For good- a reference to the eternal ―good‖ of the Kingdom age, i.e., ‗so that we might enter

the Kingdom‘? The future Kingdom is called ―good things‖ in Is. 52:7 (quoted in Rom. 10:15) and

Jer. 8:15. All things work together for good doesn‘t mean that somehow everything will work out

OK for us in this life- for so often they don‘t. We are asked to carry the Lord‘s cross, to suffer now

and be redeemed in glory later at His return. ―All things‖ may refer to ―all creation‖ in Rom. 8:22,

as if to say that everything in the whole of creation works together for our ultimate ―good‖. But that

―good‖ must be defined within Paul‘s usage of the term in Romans; and he doesn‘t ever use it in the

sense of material good in this life. Consider how he uses the word: ―Doing good‖, righteous

behaviour (Rom. 2:7,10); ―a good man‖, a righteous man, maybe in reference to the moral purity of

the Lord Jesus (Rom. 5:7); ―no good thing dwells within me... the good that I would do, I do not‖

(Rom. 7:18,19). Remember that Paul is writing Romans 8 in commentary upon and extension to his

lament in Romans 7 that he cannot do the good that he would. Now he is taking comfort that in the

bigger picture, man is not alone in creation; all things in this world are somehow working together

within God‘s master plan so that we shall in fact do good, be righteous; both in our lives in Christ

today and ultimately for eternity in God‘s Kingdom. For those who ―love God‖, who in their

innermost beings delight in God‘s law, somehow life works out, albeit in a very complex way, so

that we may do that which is good, and have the goodness of Christ‘s righteousness eternally

counted to us. Despite having lamented that he himself fails to ―do good‖ as he would wish (Rom.

7:19), Paul urges us all to ―do good‖ in the practical section of Romans. We are to cleave to the

good, overcome evil with good, do good, be wise to that which is good and simple concerning evil

(Rom. 12:2,9,21; 13:3; 16:19). Clearly Paul doesn‘t wish us to understand his frustration with his

human condition as any excuse for giving up the effort. And the indwelling spirit of Christ seeks to

orchestrate all things in the whole of creation to work together so that we may succeed in that doing

of good. Snow in Latvia or flash floods in Australia may be brought about by cosmic forces which

operate exactly so that we may... help up that old man who has slipped on the ice, take in that family

who lost their home. And of course it all works out far more subtly than this, hour by hour. God has

begun a ―good work [s.w.] in us‖ and will bring it to completion in the day of Christ‘s return (Phil.

1:6). And all things in the whole of creation are somehow orchestrated to that end. Thus at baptism

we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2:10). And He gives us ―all sufficiency to

abound to every good work‖ (2 Cor. 9:8), we are sanctified and prepared [Gk. ‗provided for‘] to

perform every good work God intends for us (2 Tim 2:21); fully equipped by God to do every good

work in His purpose for us (2 Tim. 3:17). Each time in these verses, the Greek word for ―good‖ is

the same as in Rom. 8:28. All this puts paid once and for all to the idea that we can do no good work

because we don‘t have the money, the life situation, the resources. We have every sufficiency to do

those good works intended for us; but we must ―be ready to every good work‖ (Tit. 3:1), prepared to

grasp the moment, living in the spirit of carpe diem. And thus we shall be ‗established‘ in every

good work we put our hands to (2 Thess. 2:17), none shall ultimately harm us if we follow after

performing these good works (1 Pet. 3:13), we shall be made perfect or completed ―in every good

work in the doing of His will‖ (Heb. 13:21).

202

All things work together for good especially when the ―good works‖ are in the context of assisting

others towards the Kingdom. Paul‘s concise summary of us in this verse as those who ―love God‖

recalls 1 Jn. 4:20,21; 5:2- we only love God when we love others. The uncommon Greek word

translated ‗work together‘ is to be found in the great preaching commission in Mk. 16:20, where it is

observed that the Lord Jesus ‗worked together with‘ those who sought to preach the Gospel in all

the world. This appears to be a comment upon the Lord‘s promise that in this work of preaching the

Gospel, He would be with His preachers unto the end of the world (Mt. 28:20). Whilst this can be

understood as the end of the age, it seems to me that the Lord is saying that in taking the Gospel to

the whole world, He will be with them in it, right to the ends of the world- be it in witnessing to

Amazonian Indians or to your unbelieving family in a run down apartment block in Moscow or

London or New York. We are workers together with Him in the work of saving others (2 Cor. 6:1);

yet all things in all creation are also working together to this end. By becoming part of that huge

operating system, dynamized as it is by God‘s Spirit, we will experience God working with us.

Somehow, resources become available; somehow we meet the right people. But all this happens if

we are those who ―love God‖. If our love for Him and the furtherance of His glory in human lives is

paramount, then we will naturally find ourselves part of this positive, triumphant system which

always is lead in triumph in Christ. All this isn‘t only encouragement to those faced with decision

making on a large scale- e.g. a mission organization wondering if they have the resources to open a

new front of work, or provide significant care to a needy group. More personally, it applies to each

of us. We each have good works before ordained that we should walk in them, live a way of life

which achieves them (Eph. 2:10). We need to ask the Lord to reveal what they are, to review our

station and place within life‘s network and perceive them, remembering that ―the unexamined life

isn‘t worth living‖, and seek to go for them. The idea is commonly expressed that for now, I shall

work in my career, in my business, and then I shall have the resources to serve God as I vaguely

imagine I could in some specific way. Manic capitalism has succeeded in commodifying everything,

turning everything into a price tag. But the good works God has in mind for us aren‘t usually of that

nature. Kindness, acceptance, comfort, forgiveness, interest in others‘ needs and sufferings... these

are the essence of being as Christ in this world. This is Christianity, Christ-ness, being like Christ.

For He achieved all He did ―with a minimum of miracle‖ as Robert Roberts put it, and with hardly

any cash behind Him. And so all this working together towards ultimate ―good‖ shall be possible

and is possible, for those who in the core of their hearts truly ―love God‖. This is another allusion,

surely, to Romans 7:15-24, where Paul is saying that in his heart he loves God, but is frustrated by

his flesh. I have no doubt that most of you my readers are in this category- of loving God. The

Jewish mind would‘ve been jogged by the reference to ‗loving God‘ to the classic definition of

loving God- to love Him with our heart and mind (Mt. 22:37). And this is exactly what Paul is

saying he does in Romans 7, delighting in God‘s law in his mind, despite serving sin in his flesh.

Them who are the called according to His purpose- Here Paul starts to introduce the concept of

calling, election according to God‘s purpose. He doesn‘t just start talking of Divine calling and

predestination without a context. His whole message in Romans 1-8 is that we are saved by grace;

and the fact there is some element of predestination and calling over and above our will and works

is solid proof that salvation is by grace- and that we who know we have been called, in that we have

heard the call of the Gospel which contains that call, really are those who have been chosen to live

eternally. Again and again, the message Paul preaches here is too good news. We struggle to qualify

what he is saying, to allow our works and obedience a greater factor in the final algorithm of Divine

salvation. But time and again we return to the question- why do I know all this, why am I reading

these words, hearing this call, when so many others have lived and died without it? Why is it that I

‗get it‘ about God, but my brother or my sister was never interested from babyhood? Why me, why

her, why you, and not the guy next door? For all our philosophy, wise cracks and clever words,

there is no abidingly satisfactory answer. It is of God‘s grace and not of ourselves. Paul specifically

connects our calling with God‘s grace in 2 Tim. 1:9: ―Who has saved us, and called us with an holy

203

calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace‖. Note how the ideas of

calling, grace and God‘s purpose all run together here as they do in Rom. 8:28. The ―purpose of

God‖ is further defined in Rom. 9:11 as not depending upon human works. We were called because

we were called, by grace, quite independent of what works we would or would not do. Eph. 1:11

says that we are ―predestinated according to the purpose of [God]‖. The whole idea of calling

according to a predetermined Divine purpose means we are predestinated. We need not struggle

over whether we have been called or not. The call, the invitation to the Kingdom, is in the Gospel.

Any who hear it have been called. If I invite you to an event, you are invited, you are called to it.

Lest there be any doubt, Paul began Romans by assuring us that we are called just as surely as he

was (Rom. 1:1,6,7). He opens 1 Corinthians the same way- speaking of his calling and then using

the same word to describe how his readers are likewise the called (1 Cor. 1:1,2,24). The calling of

God is ―without repentance‖ in the sense that we can never be disinvited, become ‗uncalled‘ (Rom.

11:29). And if we are called, then we are predestinated (Eph. 1:11). Whilst calling doesn‘t mean

final acceptance with God- for we must make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10), to not be

saved at the last day would require us to have wilfully fought against the predestined desire of God

to save us, to have reasoned against destiny. Paul‘s great theme in Romans 1-8 is that we are ―in

Christ‖ by status through having believed into Him by baptism. This connects with this theme of

calling according to the Divine purpose, because God ‗purposed His eternal purpose in Christ Jesus

our Lord‘ (Eph. 3:11). If we are in Him, then we are in God‘s eternal purpose, we will continue

eternally because God‘s purpose for us is eternal. We would have to wilfully reject that status if we

are to somehow come out of that eternal purpose. Being ―in‖ God‘s purpose means that His

purpose, His will, His Spirit, is to become ours- hence Paul can use the same word to speak of his

―purpose‖ in life (2 Tim. 3:10).

According to His purpose- can be applied to the first clause of the verse, ―all things work together

for good‖ within the overall purpose of God to save us. It doesn‘t have to modify the idea of our

calling.

Joseph stands as a pattern for us all. When Paul wrote that all things work together for our good

(Rom. 8:28), he was echoing how in all the grief of Joseph's life, the rejection by his brethren, the

cruel twists of fate [as they seemed at the time]... God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). This same

wonderful process will come true in our lives- for they too are equally directed by a loving Father.

God's whole purpose, according to Paul, is that we should become like His Son-and to this end all

things are directed in God's plan for us (Rom. 8:28,29). To achieve the "measure of the stature of

the fullness of Christ" is the 'perfection' or maturity towards which God works in our lives. As we

read of Him day by day, slowly His words and ways will become ours. The men who lived with

Jesus in the flesh are our pattern in this; for the wonder of the inspired record means that His

realness comes through to us too. Time and again, their spoken and written words are reflective of

His words, both consciously and unconsciously.

8:29- see on Rom. 6:5.

For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate- We are called for sure, therefore we were

predestinated for sure, and therefore we personally were foreknown. To the Jewish mind, it was the

prophets and Messiah who were personally foreknown. And Paul uses this shockingly exalted

language about each of us, reasoning back from the basis that we know we have been called. His

logical path is irresistible, at least intellectually. But in practice it amounts to an almost too good

news. We were predestinated to be saved, to be part of God‘s eternal purpose, a plan for us which

shall last for ever. It would require a battle of wills against God, a conscious, wilful desire not to be

in that purpose any more, to make us no longer a part of that purpose. No wonder we should strive

to spread the invitations to that Kingdom far and wide, to call people to the Kingdom. We who have

heard and accepted that call are even now part of a plan, a purpose, which shall last eternally- this is

the significance of God‘s purpose with us being an ―eternal purpose‖ (Eph. 3:11). This may explain

204

why often we feel that God is indeed working with us, that we are part of some far bigger cosmic

plan, but we‘re not sure exactly where it‘s going to end. All we can do is to play our part in that

purpose as enthusiastically as possible, knowing that we are playing a part in some unseen purpose,

which shall have eternal consequences. Why was the train cancelled, the airport closed by snow? So

that for those who wish to be part of God‘s purpose, who ―love God‖, we had time to make a phone

call to brother X or pay a visit to sister Y or stay the night with family Z, so that we might play

some part in encouraging them towards God‘s Kingdom? We cannot see it clearly, but we sense

something of God in these things, even in death itself. The situation gets the more complex, the

waters muddied, in that both we and others can at times and in some ways not respond as God

intends, or not as far as He intended. And so the eternal purpose is in a sense thwarted, God‘s

intentions delayed or forced by human failure to be rescheduled, reinterpreted, fulfilled in other

ways or at other times. But all the same, we continue to play our part as best we can, as far as we

can, loving God with our whole heart, soul and mind, not on a hobbyist, part-time level; and so we

shall eternally continue.

To be conformed to the image of His Son- This is parallel to our being fully born into the family of

God, of which the Lord Jesus is the firstborn. Whilst the process of being formed after the image of

Christ is ongoing in this life, it will come to full term only at our final birth of the Spirit when we

enter God‘s Kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). The Greek for ―conformed‖ is used only in one other place, in

Phil. 3:21, where we read that at Christ‘s return, our vile body shall be ―fashioned like unto‖ [s.w.

‗conformed‘] the now glorious body of Christ. The conforming is therefore referring to our final

change of nature at Christ‘s return, even though the conforming process begins in this life (Rom.

12:2). The end point, therefore, isn‘t so much eternal life, but to be like Christ, the Son of God. Paul

has been arguing that we are counted as Christ now, His character, personality and spirit are counted

to us. But finally we shall be changed into persons like unto Christ Himself. But the form of Jesus to

which we shall be con-formed in that day is the ―form‖ which He had on earth- for Phil. 2:6 speaks

of the Lord Jesus as having ―the form of God‖ at the time of His final spiritual climax in the death

of the cross. This morphe or ―form‖ refers not to His ‗very nature‘, as Trinitarians wilfully

misinterpret this passage, but rather to the image of God mentally. Who Jesus was in His time of

dying was in fact ―God‖; not that He ‗was God‘ then, but in that His character and spirit finally

matured to an exact replica of who God is in essence. And this is who or what we are counted as

today- for all in Christ are counted as Him. And this is who we shall be conformed to in the final

triumph at the day of His coming. Our calling is to be like Him; not simply to have eternal life in

God‘s Kingdom. More essentially, the call of the Gospel is a call to be like Him in this life, and to

then be finally made like Him. The parables which explain the good news of the Kingdom therefore

speak of how life can be lived now, in forgiveness, service, kindness etc. This is the good news of

the Kingdom life; the good news isn‘t simply an invitation to live eternally in a future Kingdom on

earth; rather is it the good news of a form of life that can be lived now and shall eternally be lived to

its intended fullness.

That He might be the firstborn among many brothers- Because we shall be made like Him morally,

we will have the essential family characteristic: moral perfection. We will thereby become God‘s

children also, as He was and is. We shall become His ―brothers‖ in that we have been counted as

Him now, and then shall be made like Him. So the language isn‘t thoughtlessly sexist, rather is it

reflective of how we shall be made like Him. Through the resurrection, Christ became ―the firstborn

of all creation‖ (Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5); the same Greek phrase for ―all creation‖ is to be found in

Rom. 8:22. The idea may be that ultimately all creation somehow will follow this same path to

glory, to ultimate reconciliation with God. And yet Col. 1:23 uses the same phrase in this context to

speak of how the Gospel has been preached to ―all creation‖, in fulfilment of the great commission

to take the Gospel to ―all creation‖ (Mk. 16:15 same phrase). ―Firstborn among many brothers‖ here

in Rom. 8:29 therefore becomes parallel to being the firstborn of ―all creation‖ in Colossians 1. In

the end, ―all creation‖ will be God‘s redeemed children. And we will only be there because

205

someone went out into our world and preached the Gospel to the ―all creation‖. In this lies the

eternal significance of calling others to that Kingdom by obeying the great commission.

When Paul writes of our being transformed into ―the image of Christ‖ (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49) he

seems to have in mind Ez. 1:28 LXX: ―The appearance of the image of the glory of the Lord‖. ―The

glory‖ in Ezekiel is personified- it refers to a person, and I submit that person was a prophetic

image of Jesus Christ. But Paul‘s big point is that we each with unveiled face have beheld the

Lord‘s glory (2 Cor. 3:16- 4:6); just as he did on the Damascus road, and just as Ezekiel did. It

follows, therefore, that not only is Paul our example, but our beholding of the Lord‘s glory propels

us on our personal commission in the Lord‘s service, whatever it may be. See on Acts 9:3.

Martial described a crucifixion victim [in Liber Spectaculorum]: ―In all his body was nowhere a

body‘s shape". We are to be ―conformed to the image of [God‘s] son" (Rom. 8:29)- to share His

morphe, which was so marred beyond recognition that men turned away in disgust (Is. 52:14 cp.

Phil. 2:7). The mind that was in Him then must be in us now (Phil. 2:5).

8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also

justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is partially a recapitulation of the argument of Rom. 8:29; a repeating for emphasis of

something which is almost too good news to believe. We were called because we were

predestinated; and Paul has earlier outlined in his argument that we who are in Christ have been

―justified‖, declared right, at the judgment seat of God. We haven‘t yet been glorified, in that our

bodies haven‘t yet been changed, the final day of judgment hasn‘t yet come. But Paul uses the past

tense as if it has already happened. This ‗prophetic perfect‘ was a Hebrew style which was quite

grammatically acceptable, even if it may seem strange when translated into other languages such as

Greek or English. Paul‘s point is that if we are in Christ, declared right before God‘s judgment right

now, then we can be assured of final salvation, the glorification of the body- should Christ return at

this moment, or if we should die at this moment. For tomorrow of course we might throw it all

away. But we are not to worry about tomorrow in that sense; we can rejoice here and now that we

are saved and are as good as ultimately saved and in the Kingdom. We have already been

predestinated, already called, already justified- and therefore in prospect, already glorified. Yet

again, Paul succeeds in making us gasp for breath, struggling as we do with the too good news of

the Gospel. It is the Lord Jesus who has now been ―glorified‖ (s.w. Jn. 12:16; Acts 3:13); and seeing

that all that is true of Him is now true of us who by status are now ―in Him‖, it can be also said that

we have been in this sense already glorified. Perhaps the practical section of Romans connects to

this verse when we read in Rom. 15:6,9 that the Gentiles shall glorify God for His mercy; because

He has glorified us, we are to glorify Him.

Also glorified- from God‘s standpoint, outside of our kind of time. For that glory has yet to be

revealed in us (1 Pet. 5:1).

8:31 What shall we then say to these things? – Paul returns to the rhetorical, legal style which he

used earlier in Romans. The phrase could be an allusion to a legal one; as if to say to the accused or

to the jury: ‗What then do you say to these things?‘. We are invited to be the jury at our own trial.

The evidence that we shall be saved is devastating; nothing can be said against it. Or it could be that

Paul is in the place of the defence, going on the attack against the prosecutor. What can be argued

against all this evidence? And there would have to be silence. The case is set in concrete. The

arguments simply cannot be answered. Paul has previously thrown down the challenge after some of

his previous depositions of evidence in this very public case of God‘s Gracious, Certain Salvation

vs. All Human Doubts And Fears. Four times he has challenged: What then shall we say to this

(Rom. 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7)? And there can only be silence. But Paul‘s rhetorical style is almost

aggressive; he is the counsel for the defence who is on the offensive rather than the apologetic and

defensive. But it seems Paul isn‘t satisfied with winning the case. He drives it home now in the final

206

verses of this chapter in a kind of tour de triumph, a victory lap before all of creation. He is

exalting, both intellectually and emotionally, in God‘s grace and the certainty of our salvation. But

he‘s not exalting just for the sake of it; he is aware of his own cries of frustration with his own

failure which he voiced in Romans 7, and he is aware of how cautious and weak in faith are we his

readers, who struggle to believe the goodness of this good news, this Gospel of grace. And so he has

to hammer it home. "What shall we then say to these things?"- i.e. 'what form of words, of 'saying',

is adequate response to them?' (Rom. 8:31; Paul uses that phrase seven times in Romans, so beyond

words did he find the atonement wrought in Christ). Words aren't symbols sufficient for our

experience of God's grace and love; all commentary is bathos, like trying to explain a symphony in

words; we experience a collapse of language. What remains, I suppose, is to live, to exist, in the

sober knowledge of this grace, to never lose sight of them in our hearts; and all the rest, the rest of

life and living and all the decisions and responses we are supposed to make, will somehow come

naturally.

If God is for us, who can be against us?- The songs of the suffering Servant are applied to us in

Rom. 8:31, where Paul exalts that "if God be for us, who is against us?"- alluding to Is. 50:8 "The

Lord God is helping me- who is he that would convict me?". If we are in Christ, we like Him cannot

be condemned. In the legal context, if the judge of all is legally ―for us‖, then there effectively is no

accuser, nothing and nobody standing against us. It‘s as if Paul has rightly guessed his readers‘

response: ‗OK Paul, I have nothing to say against your argument, but all the same you don‘t know

what a sinner I am, what a line of sins I have waiting there to condemn me‘. And Paul‘s exultant

answer is that if God is ―for us‖- and he has demonstrated this time and again, that God quite simply

wants to save us- then nothing and nobody, not even our own sins, can ultimately stand against us.

The idea of God being ―for us‖ is repeated twice elsewhere in Romans. In Rom. 5:8 we read that

God commended His love toward us in that Christ, His Son, died ―for us‖. This is the extent to

which God is ―for us‖. And in Rom. 8:34, Christ makes intercession ―for us‖ to God the judge; and

yet God the judge is also ―for us‖. All this legal language is only metaphor, and all metaphors break

down at some point if pushed too far. If in this case we push it too far, we would end up saying that

God is somehow unjust, His sense of legal justice lacks integrity and so is worthless in an ethical,

moral sense. However, the broad brush impression is that in the highest, ultimate court analysis of

our case, both the judge and the counsel for the defence are passionately ―for us‖ on a personal

level. In God‘s case, He was ―for us‖ to the extent of giving His Son to die ―for us‖, for the sake of

our sins and failures for which we are in the dock. Col. 2:14 uses the same phrase to describe how

the Mosaic Law which was ―against us‖ has been taken out of the way through Christ‘s death; and

Paul has argued that the strength of sin is in the Law. If that is taken away, then sin will not have

power in the lives of those who are ―in Christ‖, in whom such law and legality is now no more.

As an aside, it should be noted that when the Lord told John to ―Forbid not; for he that is not against

us is for us‖ (Lk. 9:50 Gk.), He could have been referring to God; as if to say that we don‘t need to

as it were defend Him against possible impostors, because God Himself is the One who is not

against us but for us. In this case, here in Rom. 8:31 we would have yet another of Paul‘s allusions

to the Gospels; his point would be that if God is for us and not against us, then nothing at all nor

anybody, not even ourselves and our sins, can be against us.

8:32 He that spared not His own son- Perhaps alluding to how God commended Abraham for not

having spared his son (Gen. 22:16). As noted on Rom. 8:31, God our judge is ―for us‖ in that He

gave His own Son to die ―for us‖, for our sins. The idea of God not sparing people is usually used in

the sense of ‗not sparing them from condemnation‘, and it is used like this twice elsewhere in

Romans (Rom. 11:21 [twice]; 2 Cor. 13:2; 2 Pet. 2:4,5). The Lord Jesus bore our sins in that He

identified with them; and the Old Testament idea of sin bearing meant to bear condemnation for sin.

As the representative of we who are sinners, He in some sense died the death of a condemned man;

207

His final cry ―Why have You forsaken me?‖ (Mt. 27:46) was surely rooted in the Old Testament

theme that God will forsake sinners but never forsake the righteous. He felt as a sinner, although He

was not one. The language of God not sparing His own Son could be read as meaning that God

treated Him as condemned, in the sense that the Lord Jesus was to such an extent our representative.

If this is the correct line of interpretation, then Paul would again be tackling our objection that we

are such awful sinners that perhaps his fantastic news of grace still doesn‘t apply to us personally.

And he would be answering it by saying that because we are in Christ and Christ in us, Christ died

as our representative, deeply identifying with us as characters and persons and thereby with the

sinfulness and failure which is such a significant part of us. And therefore as our representative He

died and rose again, so that we might be able to believe ‗into Him‘ and thereby share in His

resurrection and glorification.

Spared not - God ‗spared not‘ His own son (Rom. 8:32)- alluding to the LXX of Gen. 22:16, where

Abraham spares not his son. The Greek phrase is elsewhere used about God not sparing people

when He assigns them to condemnation (Rom. 11:21; 2 Cor. 13:2; 2 Pet. 2:4,5). The Lord Jesus

knows how not only sinners feel but how the rejected will feel- for He ‗bore condemnation‘ in this

sense. We should be condemned. But He as our representative was condemned, although not

personally guilty. He so empathized with us through the experience of the cross that He came to feel

like a sinner, although He was not one. And thus He has freed us from condemnation. When Paul

asks in Rom. 8:33,34 ‗Who can accuse us? Where are those people? Who can condemn us, if God

justifies us?‘, he is alluding to the woman taken in adultery. For the Lord asked the very same

rhetorical questions on that occasion. Paul‘s point is that we each one are that woman. We are under

accusations which we can‘t refute. The Lord never denied her guilt; but He took it away. The Lord

comforted her that no man has nor can condemned her, and He who alone could do so, instead

pronounces her free from condemnation.

Delivered Him- the Greek is three times used in Is. 53 LXX about the handing over to Jesus to His

death. The moment of the Lord being delivered over by Pilate is so emphasized. There are few

details in the record which are recorded verbatim by all the writers (Mt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk.

23:25; Jn. 19:16). The Lord had prophesied this moment of handing over, as if this was something

which He dreaded (Mk. 9:31; 10:33); that point when He was outside the legal process, and must

now face His destruction. The Angels reminded the disciples: "Remember how he spake unto you

when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men"

(Lk. 24:6,7). The emphasis is on "How", with what passion and emphasis. Rom. 4:25 makes this

moment of handing over equivalent to His actual death: " Who was delivered (s.w.) for our offences,

and raised again for our justification". So much stress is put on this moment of being delivered over

to crucifixion. The Gospel records stress that Pilate delivered Him up; but in fact God did (Rom.

8:32); indeed, the Lord delivered Himself up (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2,25). Always the same word is

used. These passages also stress that He delivered Himself up, and was delivered up, for us. It was

our salvation which motivated Him at the moment of being delivered up. Perhaps it was at that

moment that He had the greatest temptation to walk through the midst of them and back to Galilee.

As the crowd surged forward and cheered, knowing they'd won the battle of wills with Pilate..."take

ye him and crucify him" ringing in His mind... this was it. This was the end. How He must have

been tempted to pray again His prayer: "Let this cup pass from me...". Jerusalem was a small town

by modern standards, with no more than 10,000 inhabitants. There must have been faces in that

crowd which, through swollen eyes, He recognized; some whose children had benefited from His

miracles, whose ears had heard His discourses with wonderment. The emphasis on this moment of

delivering up is so great that there must have been an especial sacrifice on the Lord's part. But He

"gave himself up" to God not men (1 Pet. 2:23); He knew He was giving Himself as an offering to

God as the crowd came forward and the soldiers once again led Him. The almost terrifying thing is

208

that we, for the sake of our identity with Christ, are also "delivered up to death" (2 Cor. 4:11). We

are asked to share, in principle, the height of devotion that He reached in that moment.

How shall He not with Him freely give us all things- If so much was given to us by the death of

Christ, if God gave His Son for us, then how much ‗easier‘ is it for Him to give us absolutely

anything. For nothing compares to the gift of God‘s Son to die; this is the ultimate gift from God to

man. To give us eternity and forgiveness for our sins is in far less than the gift of the blood of His

Son. And further, if God gave us His Son in order to save us, in order to ―give us all things‖- is it

really feasible that having given us His Son so that He might ―give us all things‖, He would then not

―give us all things‖? Again, Paul‘s logic is intrusive and powerful. We may shut the book, stop

reading or listening, but the force of the argument silently echoes within our narrow and fearful

minds. God did ―not spare‖ His Son- by contrast, He ―freely gave‖ Him [Gk. ‗to grace with‘], His

Son was indeed ―all things‖ to God, His only and beloved Son. Seeing God gave us Him, it‘s

obvious that He is going to give us the things which that gift was given in order to make possible.

―Shall He not with Him also‖ could be a reference to the resurrection- if God gave us so much in the

death of His Son, think how much more was achieved and given to us through His resurrection.

―With him‖ could be read another way, however- as referring to how Christ will meet the believers

―in the air‖, and they shall come ―with him‖ to judgment (1 Thess. 4:14), with Him their judge

clearly ―for them‖. However we must remember Paul is driving here at our fears that our sins are

too great for the good news, however good it is, to be true for us personally. The Greek translated

―freely give‖ is a form of the word charis, grace, and is often translated ―forgive‖. It‘s the same

word used in Lk. 7:42, where God ‗frankly forgives‘ all the sins / debts of His servants. Perhaps

Paul has this in mind. If God gave up His Son to die for us, in order to achieve forgiveness for our

sins, then rather obviously, surely, He will ―frankly forgive‖ or ―freely give‖ us forgiveness for all

things, all and any sin. We shouldn‘t think that this is somehow harder for God than to give us His

Son to die for our sins. He has already done that. And so giving us the forgiveness which Christ died

to attain isn‘t therefore so difficult. If we are in Christ, then God has ―quickened us together with

Him, having forgiven us [s.w. ―freely give‖ in Rom. 8:32] all trespasses‖. The ―all things‖ of Rom.

8:32 can thus be understood as ―all our trespasses‖. And so Paul goes on to triumph in Rom. 8:37

that we are conquerors in ―all things‖, over all our sins, because we are in Him that loved us.

8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge – Again, legal language. Where is our accuser? Can

anyone accuse us of anything? No, insofar as we are ―in Christ‖. The allusion is to the Gospels, to

the way the Lord Jesus could calmly challenge: ―Which of you can convict me of sin?‖ (Jn. 8:46). If

He could not be seriously accused of sin, neither can we. The records of the Lord‘s trials are

perhaps also in view here- for the accusers failed to produce any case which held together (Mk.

14:59). All this takes on striking relevance to us, as we stand in the dock before the righteous

judgment of God- and are declared right, without any credible accusers. This of course is only

possible because we are ―in Christ‖. The only other time the Greek for ‗lay to the charge‘ occurs is

in the records of Paul‘s own trials, where again no credible accusation was found against him (Acts

19:38,40; 23:28,29; 26:2,7). As so often, Paul is reasoning from his own personal experience. He

knew what it felt like to stand in court and see your accusers‘ case just crumble before your eyes.

He makes the point in his own defence that there is no proof of anything of which he is accused, and

that significantly the witnesses against him aren‘t even present in the courtroom (Acts 24:13,19)- all

very much the scene of Rom. 8:33. And he says this is true for each one who is in Christ.

God is the prosecutor- yet He is the one who shall search for Israel's sin, and admit that it cannot be

found (Jer. 50:20). God is both judge, advocate for the defence, and prosecutor- and this is God is

for us, the guilty! Rom. 8:33,34 develops the figure at length. The person bringing the complaint of

sin against us is God alone- for there is no personal devil to do so. And the judge who can alone

condemn us is the Lord Jesus alone. And yet we find the one ‗brings the charge‘ instead being the

very one who justifies us, or as the Greek means, renders us guiltless. The one who brings the

charge becomes this strange judge who is so eager to declare us guiltless. And the judge who can

209

alone condemn, or render guilty, is the very one who makes intercession to the judge for us- and

moreover, the One who died for us, so passionate is His love. The logic is breathtaking, literally so.

The figures are taken from an earthly courtroom, but the roles are mixed. Truly ―if God be for us

[another courtroom analogy], who can be against us‖ (Rom. 8:31). This advocate / intercessor is

matchless. With Him on our side, ‗for us‘, we cannot possibly be condemned. Whatever is ‗against

us‘- our sins- cannot now be against us, in the face of this mighty advocate. Let‘s face it, the thing

we fear more than death is our sin which is ‗against us‘. But the assurance is clear, for those who

will believe it. With an attorney for the defence such as we have, who is also our passionate judge

so desperate to justify us- even they cannot stand ‗against us‘. Rom. 8:33 states that there is now

nobody who can accuse us, because none less than God Himself, the judge of all, is our justifier in

Christ! And so whatever is said about us, don‘t let this register with us as if it is God accusing us.

Not for us the addiction of internet chat groups, wanting to know what is said about us or feeling

defensive under accusation. For all our sins, truly or falsely accused of, God is our justifier, and not

ourselves. And thus our consciences can still blossom when under man‘s false accusation, genuinely

aware of our failures for what they are, not being made to feel more guilty than we should, or to

take false guilt. This is all a wonderful and awesome outworking of God‘s plan of salvation by

grace.

If God is our justifier, where is he that condemns us, or lays any guilt to our charge (Rom. 8:33,34)?

And yet in family life, in ecclesial relationships... we are so so quick to feel and hurt from the

possible insinuations of others against us. We seek to justify ourselves, to correct gossip and

misrepresentation, to ―take up" an issue to clear our name. We all tend to be far too sensitive about

what others may be implying about us. All this reflects a sad lack of appreciation of the wonder of

the fact that we are justified by God, and in His eyes- which is surely the ultimately important

perspective- we are without fault before the throne of grace, covered in the imputed and peerless

righteousness of the Lord. Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to

conclude: ―But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment:

yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he

that judgeth me [right now] is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:3-4). The judge is the justifier, according to this

argument. Paul is not justified by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact

that God alone is judge through Christ [another first principle] means that nobody can ultimately

justify us or condemn us. The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our

own efforts at self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and

therefore He alone can and will justify.

When a man is under accusation, his conscience usually dies. He is so bent on self-defence and

seeking his own innocence and liberation from accusation. And we see this in so many around us.

But for us, we have been delivered from accusation, judged innocent, granted the all powerful and

all authoritative heavenly advocate. Rom. 8:33 states that there is now nobody who can accuse us,

because none less than God Himself, the judge of all, is our justifier in Christ! And so whatever is

said about us, don‘t let this register with us as if it is God accusing us. Not for us the addiction of

internet chat groups, wanting to know what is said about us or feeling defensive under accusation.

For all our sins, truly or falsely accused of, God is our justifier, and not ourselves. And thus our

consciences can still blossom when under man‘s false accusation, genuinely aware of our failures

for what they are, not being made to feel more guilty than we should, or to take false guilt. This is

all a wonderful and awesome outworking of God‘s plan of salvation by grace.

Of God‟s elect- The reason why there are no accusers against us, not even our own sins, is because

we are ―God‘s elect‖. The supreme chosen one of God was of course the Lord Jesus, ―mine elect, in

whom my soul delights‖ (Is. 42:1). And yet later on in the servant songs of Isaiah, ―mine elect‖

clearly refers to the people of Israel (Is. 45:4; 65:9,22). The true Israel of God are therefore those

counted as somehow ―in‖ the elect one, the singular servant of God, Messiah Jesus. Those baptized

into Him are therefore His elect. And how do we know we are ―God‘s elect‖? If we are baptized

210

into Christ, ―mine elect‖, then for sure we are. And further, we have heard the call of the Gospel, we

have been called- so, we are God‘s elect, His chosen ones. Of course the objection can be raised that

the whole idea of calling or election may appear unfair. Indeed, the Greek word for ―elect‖ can carry

the idea of ‗the favoured / favourite one‘. There is no ultimate injustice here. The chosen One is the

Lord Jesus, beloved for the sake of His righteousness, His spirit of life. Those who respond to the

call to be ―in Him‖ are counted likewise. And all this is the way, the method used, in order for God

to be the one who counts us as right in the ultimate judgment- for ―It is God that justifies‖.

8:34 Who is he that condemns?- There are many links between Romans and John's Gospel; when

Paul asks where is anyone to condemn us (Rom. 8:34), we are surely intended to make the

connection to Jn. 8:10, where the Lord asks the condemned woman the very same question. It's as if

she, there, alone with the Lord, face down, is the dead ringer of every one of us. The legal allusion

is definitely to the judge, the one who will pass sentence. The question is ―Who is?‖ rather than

―Where is?‖. It‘s not that God, the judge of all, abdicates His judgment throne and ceases to tell

right from wrong. There is an integrity in His judgment. The answer of course is that it is God who

is the One who passes sentence. The rest of the verse goes on to speak of the Lord Jesus as our

intercessor at His right hand. The point is, that God the righteous judge is going to take notice of the

pleadings of His Son, whom He gave to die for our forgiveness and redemption. The idea of

condemning must be seen in the context of Rom. 8:3, where we have just read that it is sin which is

condemned by God, and He has already condemned it, in the crucified flesh of the Lord Jesus. ―Sin‖

is condemned; we are not condemned. The point clearly is that it is our status ―in Christ‖ and our

disassociation from ―sin‖, as strongly as Paul disassociated himself from ―sin‖ in Rom. 7:15-23,

which is the means by which we are saved, and not only saved but declared right.

Christ died, and moreover, is risen again- This is said in the context of the comment that it is God

who judges. It‘s not that the death and resurrection of a person of itself can change the mind of God

or lead Him to not condemn us, in some mystical way. We are saved by the Lord‘s death and

resurrection in that we can identify with it by baptism into His death and resurrection, and be

counted as Christ, the Son of God. It is this which affects how God judges us.

Who is moreover at the right hand of God- Note the double use of the idea of ―moreover‖. Paul is

building up his logic towards the final crescendo- that we are in fact saved from condemnation in

Christ. This is classic Paul. The death of God‘s Son for us would be enough to persuade God the

Judge of all. But further, He rose again; and we who are in Him are counted likewise to have died

and risen again, as Paul has laboured in Romans 6. So, for sure we are saved. But yet further, God‘s

risen Son is now at His right hand, pleading for us! I suggest that the sequence here of ―Died, rose

again, alive at God‘s right hand interceding for us‖ is somehow repeated in Rom. 14:9: ―Christ both

died and rose and revived‖. In this case the ―revived‖ would be a reference to the fact that He not

only resurrected but is alive and active for us in mediation. In this sense, perhaps, ―we are saved by

His life‖ (Rom. 5:10). Being at the right hand was the position of favour, of honour. The point in

this context is that if God so deeply respects His Son- and the theme of the Father‘s genuine respect

of His Son is a beautiful theme in Scripture- then surely He will be very open to the Son‘s work for

us. The suggestion has been made that the Greek for ―right hand‖ is from the root word ―to receive‖,

and in this verse the idea that Christ stands to receive is balanced with the comment that from that

position He makes intercession or request for us His people. He is in the supreme place to receive-

and He asks from there for us to be counted as in Him.

Makes intercession - see on Rom. 8:27. We should not think that whenever we sin, we have an

intercessor in Heaven who can gain forgiveness for us and set us back right with God. The whole

argument in Romans is that we are ―in Christ‖ by status and are counted as Him; all that is true of

Him becomes true for us. It is not that we are in Christ one moment and then out of Him the next, to

be brought back into our ―in Christ‖ status by His intercession. For if this were the case, the

implication would be that we were perfect when we were ‗being good‘; and if one happened to die

211

at a point of weakness, then we would be eternally damned. God‘s way is more profound. We are

counted permanently as ―in Christ‖ by status, and in this sense we have already been redeemed, and

are simply awaiting the physical articulation of that redemption at the Lord‘s return. The imagery of

the Lord Jesus as a priest offering Heavenly sacrifices is metaphor, and as such is limited. The

position between Him today, His work for us, and the work of the Mosaic priests is not completely

analogous. We do not need a Levitical priesthood because the Lord Jesus has replaced that, but this

is not to say that He is exactly for us what the Levitical priests were for sinful Israel. For what, then,

does the Lord Jesus make intercession? I suggested under Rom. 8:27 that the intercession involves a

transference of our mind, our spirit, to that of the Lord Jesus as He sits before God. In this sense the

intercession of the Lord Jesus for us personally has an eternal quality to it (Heb. 7:25) in that our

spirit, the essence of who we are, continues in the mind of the Lord Jesus even after we die; just as

the memory or spirit of those we love lives on within us after their falling asleep. We are eternally

positioned before God, thanks to the intercession of the Lord Jesus. However, it cannot be denied

that the Greek for ―intercession‖ does indeed carry the idea of obtaining something. It is used here

in the very context of stating that the intercession is made at the ―right hand‖ of God, the place of

receiving (see commentary above). Paul uses a related word to that translated ―intercession‖ in

saying at another judgment seat that he has ―obtained help from God‖ (Acts 26:22). Perhaps he said

that fully aware that he in fact had a Heavenly intercessor, a true counsel for the defence. The same

word for ―obtain‖ which is part of that translated ―intercessor‖ occurs in the context of our obtaining

salvation and resurrection to life (2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 11:35). It is this which has been interceded for

and obtained for us by the Lord Jesus, seated as He is at the right hand, the place of receiving, of the

Judge of all. In this sense His intercession has that eternal quality to it which we earlier observed

(Heb. 7:25). And yet even this idea, that the intercession is for our salvation, still seems to be a too

simplistic summary of what Paul really has in mind here. The Lord‘s intercession for Stephen in his

time of dying was surely not simply for Stephen‘s salvation. Rather it seems to involve a

representation of our spirit, our deepest essence of thought, feeling, personality and life situation,

before the Father; intercession for our salvation; and also for other things which are on the Lord‘s

agenda for us, and which we in this life may always be ignorant of.

For us- This pregnant phrase huper hemon may mean simply ―for us‖, but huper could suggest the

idea of over and above, beyond us, more than us. In this case, there would be connection with the

thought recently expressed by Paul that although we know not how to pray for as we ought, the

Lord Jesus as ―the Lord the Spirit‖ makes intercession for us, beyond what we can verbalize. And of

course the idea would freely connect with Eph. 3:20, where Paul exalts that the Lord Jesus can do

―exceeding [Gk. huper] abundantly above [Gk. huper again- the sense of ‗beyond‘ is very strong

here in the Greek] all we ask or think, through the power that works in us‖. The wonder of it all

will literally take us eternity to appreciate. Our innermost desire is for salvation, to serve God, to be

as the Lord Jesus, to achieve His glory, both in our own characters and in all of creation. This, yet

again, is the significance of Rom. 7:15-23, that despite our failings and weakness, these are indeed

our core desires. And it is this spirit of ours which is transferred to the Lord Jesus and understood by

the Father and Judge of all. And in response to those desires, even now, there is a power working

within us to do and be for us, to work in and for us, things beyond our wildest dreams and spiritual

fantasies.

Rom. 8:34,35 suggest that the love of Christ, from which we cannot be separated, is manifested to

us through His intercessions for us. He doesn't offer our prayers to God all the time; He is our

intercessor in the sense that He is always there as our representative, and on this basis we have

acceptability with God, as we are in Him. This is proof enough that intercession is not equal to

merely translating our prayers into a language God understands. We offer our prayers ourselves to

God, as men have ever done. We are, in this sense, our own priesthood. We offer ourselves to God

(Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5). He Himself made only one offering of Himself; He does not offer Himself

212

again. If He were on earth, He would not be a priest. It is the fact we are in Him that makes our

offerings acceptable.

Many passages concerning mediation refer to the Lord's mediation of the new covenant through the

atonement God achieved through Him. None of them associate His mediation with the offering of

our prayers to God. Indeed, several passages suggest that the actual fact of the exalted Lord now

being in heavenly places, and we being in Him, is in fact the intercession necessary to bring about

our redemption- rather than His translating, as it were, of our actual words (Rom. 7:25; 8:34; 1 Jn.

2:1). The references to intercession likewise never suggest that Christ intercedes in the sense of

offering our prayers to God. "Intercession" can be read as another way of describing prayer; this is

how the term is invariably used (Jer. 7:16; 27:18; Rom. 11:2; 1 Tim. 2:1). Thus when Jeremiah is

told not to intercede for Israel, this meant he was not to pray for them; it does not imply that he was

acting as a priest to offer Israel's prayers to God. Nowhere in the Bible is the idea floated that a man

can offer another man's prayers to God and thereby make them acceptable. The Greek for

"intercession" essentially means to meet a person; prayer / intercession is a meeting with God. There

is evidently nothing morally impossible about a man having direct contact with God in prayer

without any priest or 'mediator'; the Old Testament abounds with such examples. The fact we are

called upon to make intercession for others is surely conclusive proof that "intercession" means

prayer, not relaying the words of another to God (1 Tim. 2:1). This meaning of intercession needs to

be borne in mind when we consider its occurrences in Rom. 8. There we are taught that we know

not what to pray for as we ought; the Lord Jesus makes intercession for us- i.e. He prays for us- not

with words, i.e. not transferring our human words into God's language, not shuttling to and from

between us and God as it were, but with His own groanings of the spirit. We don't know how to

pray, so Christ prays (intercedes, in the language of Rom. 8) for us.

There seems to be a link made between the Lord‘s death and the judgment in Rom. 8:34: ―Who is

he that judgeth / condemneth? It is Christ that died…", as if He and His death are the ultimate

judgment. The Old Testament idea of judgment was that in it, the Lord speaks, roars and cries, and

there is an earthquake and eclipse of the sun (Joel 3:16; Am. 1:2; Jer. 25:30; Ps. 46:7; Rev. 10:3).

Yet all these things are associated with the Lord‘s death.

8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?- The ―who?‖ may be a reference to God,

because the ―who?‖ of Rom. 8:33,34 was God. But the point there as here was that seeing God is

the only One who can do such things, then we can rest assured that they will not happen. Because

God, for the sake of His Son, will not do these things. We are ―in Christ‖ by status, and what

happened at baptism is not breakable by anything human. We cannot be separated from Him by all

the calamities listed in this verse, an 8:36 goes on to remind us that this cannot happen because we

are counted as the slaughtered Lamb, the Lord Jesus. The Greek for ―separate‖ is usually used about

divorce (1 Cor. 7:10,11,15; Mt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9). Only if we chose to as it were divorce from Christ

can we be separated from Him. Only we can make that choice- no human situation in our lives is to

be interpreted as meaning that Christ has withdrawn His love from us. Reading the list of awful

tribulations which follows, we are to understand that the love of Christ does not, therefore,

guarantee that we will not suffer in this life. Indeed, as Rom. 8:36 will go on to show, we as ―in

Christ‖ must be prepared to be slain with Him all the day long, so as to live with Him. ―The love of

Christ‖ frequently refers to His death for us. The fact He died for us should be enough to persuade

us that having loved us so much, no human tribulation could possibly be interpreted to mean that He

in fact doesn‘t love us. And yet people stumble from their faith in Christ because of tribulation, as

the parable of the sower makes clear. Why this happens is partly because they have failed to be

focused daily upon the cross- that He there, then, did that for me today. This, then, is our challenge-

to view all of life‘s tragedies, pain and unfairness through the lens of the simple fact that the Son of

God loved me, and gave Himself for me, and I as a man or woman in Him shall therefore live

eternally.

213

Tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril or sword- This list is to be understood in

the context of Rom. 8:36, that we are counted as in Christ, the slaughtered lamb, and therefore all

His sufferings we expect to be somehow articulated in our own lives, just as His resurrection life

also shall be. In the first century context, this list was the kind of ‗par for the course‘ which anyone

could expect who had signed up to be counted as ―in Christ‖. Twenty centuries later, the list may be

more subtle, but nonetheless as painful. For the cross of Christ is the cross of Christ. The forms in

which we share it may vary over history and geography, but the essence shall remain. Shall divorce,

betrayal, cancer, false accusation- separate us from His love? They should not, but rather be seen as

a very real sharing in His death and sufferings, from which we shall just as surely arise into new and

eternal life.

Tribulation- - see on Rom. 5:3; 8:18. The word used in the parable of the sower and also about the

tribulations of the last days before Christ returns (Mt. 13:21; 24:9,21). Only through such

tribulations shall we enter the Kingdom (Acts 14:22). Significantly, Paul uses the word earlier in

Romans, in speaking of the tribulation which shall come upon the rejected at the last day (Rom.

2:9). It‘s either tribulation then, or now. In this sense we can glory in tribulation, knowing it is the

guarantee that we are really in Christ (Rom. 5:3). Hence in the practical part of Romans we are

exhorted to patiently endure tribulation (Rom. 12:12).

Distress- Again, the same word used in Rom. 2:9 [―anguish‖] about the distress of the rejected in

the last day. We must experience it now, or then. Paul uses this word again in 2 Cor. 12:10, along

with words similar in meaning to the list here in Rom. 8:35, in saying that we experience distresses

―for Christ‘s sake‖, for the sake of the fact we are in Him and must have a part in His sufferings.

Persecution – The same word is used in the parable of the sower (Mt. 13:21), to which Paul seems

to be making allusion in Rom. 8:35. Many of the words in this list are appropriate to Paul‘s personal

sufferings for the sake of His being ―in Christ‖. He too was persecuted (Acts 13:50; 2 Tim. 3:11),

distressed etc. The list of his sufferings in 2 Cor. 12:10 includes this word and others in the list here.

Again and again, Paul writes as if talking to himself, and as such sets himself up as the parade

example of what he means.

Famine- Lack of food. Again, this word is in the list of Paul‘s own sufferings in 2 Cor. 11:27.

Perhaps Paul has specific reference to the famine which there was in the first century which affected

the believers (Acts 11:28). And again, famine is to be one of the latter day tribulations (Mt. 24:7).

Nakedness- Lack of clothing. Again, this word is in the list of Paul‘s own sufferings in 2 Cor. 11:27.

Peril - This word is only used elsewhere in the list of Paul‘s own sufferings in 2 Cor. 11:26.

Sword- Note that Paul envisaged his readership as likely to suffer from the sword. And yet in Rom.

13:4 he speaks of the first century authorities as using the sword to execute God‘s will against those

who do wrong. This would lead us to interpret Rom. 13:4 as having specific and limited reference in

time and space, perhaps only to the Rome ecclesia at a certain point in time and in some aspects of

justice.

Nothing, whatever, can separate us from the love of Christ towards us in His death (Rom. 8:35). His

cross is therefore the constant rallying point of our faith, in whatever difficulty we live through. The

resolve and strength we so need in our spiritual path can come only through a personal

contemplation of the cross.

8:36 – see on Rom. 8:13. The key word in this verse is ―accounted‖. Because we are counted as

Christ, the lamb slain (and the allusion here is definitely to Isaiah 53), then we should not be phased

by our experience of His cross in this life. Indeed we should expect it.

We cannot look passively at the cross. It must change how we see ourselves. It must radically affect

our self-perception and self understanding. For we are in Him. It was us who hung with Him there,

and who hang with Him still in the tribulations of life. For we are to account / impute ourselves as

214

the sheep for the slaughter, i.e. the Lord Jesus, for whose sake we are killed all the day long in the

sharing of His sufferings (Rom. 8:36); with Paul, we ―die daily‖, because we are in Christ. And if

we suffer with Him, we will also reign with Him (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:12). To see ourselves as in

Christ, to have such a positive view of ourselves, that the essential ‗me‘ is actually the sinless Son

of God, is almost asking too much of men and women living with all the dysfunction and low self-

worth that seems part of the human condition.

8:37 No- Paul seems again to be interpreting his readers‘ response. ‗Surely it can‘t be right that if

we are in Christ, then we will suffer so much? Aren‘t all these terrible tribulations the sign that we

are rejected by God rather than accepted by Him?‘. And Paul answers that ―No!‖- in fact the way

that we lose in this life is a sign that we have won, and more than won- we have become ―more than

conquerors‖. Truly ―I feel like I win when I lose‖ can become our credo in spiritual life.

In all these things- Every time they happen to us, they are the proof that we have therefore already

won, in the very thing wherein it seems we have ‗lost‘. The sense here is very much what we meet

in the sermon on the mount- that we are to rejoice when we are persecuted, attacked and abused,

because in that moment our reward is very great in Heaven.

More than conquerors- See on Rom. 8:34 ―for us‖. Again the word huper is used; there is the idea

of being over and above conquerors. There is something superlative about the great salvation which

there is in Christ. We don‘t just scrape in to God‘s Kingdom and sit there in humble gratitude for

eternity thinking how blessed / lucky we were. Not at all. We are in Christ, and all that is true of

Him is now and shall eternally be true of us. We are crowned as conquerors- and ―more than

[huper] conquerors‖. There‘s something ‗hyper‘ about the nature and quality of our salvation. It is

all so hyper abundantly above all we ask or think. And it begins now, and in this sense we have

some sense, at least a gasp from a great distance, of the ‗hyper‘ nature of it all. Paul surely has in

mind how the Lord had comforted His people that ―I have overcome [s.w. ‗conquer‘] the world‖

(Jn. 16:33). We are counted not only as overcomers just as Jesus was; but hyper-conquerors, hyper-

overcomers. John alludes to this passage in his Gospel record when he comments in his letters that

we have overcome the world because of our belief into Jesus (1 Jn. 2:13,14; 4:4; 5:4,5). Clearly

John like Paul perceived the believer into Christ [involving baptism into Him] as having the same

status as Christ; if He has overcome, so have we. There is also a legal connotation to the word

translated ―conquerors‖. The same word has been used in Rom. 3:4 to describe how God

‗overcomes‘ when He is put in the dock and judged by human disbeliefs in His declared plan of

salvation. Paul is now drawing his treatise to a conclusion. He began with us as sinners in the dock,

accused by our own sins. He has argued that we have been declared right because we are in Christ;

not simply ‗let off‘, but declared right. We have won the case; the whole thing has been turned

round. We the condemned are now the justified, we leave the courtroom as conquerors, as having

legally overcome when we were judged; all, of course, because we are in Christ. We are right now

more than conquerors through Christ (Rom. 8:37); and yet to he who overcomes [s.w. conquers] the

Kingdom shall be given (Rev. 3:21). This doesn‘t mean we can sit back and do nothing. And so

Paul goes on to exhort us not to be overcome [s.w. conquered] of evil, but to overcome evil with

good (Rom. 13:21). ―What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who (or what) can be

against us?". Paul caught the gloriously positive spirit of all this, and reflected it in his fondness for

words with the hyper- prefix (Rom. 8:37; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 7:4; Phil. 2:9; 4:7; 1 Thess. 3:10; 4:6;

5:13; 2 Thess. 1:3). God is not passively waiting for us to act, indifferently offering us the possible

futures of salvation or condemnation according to our deeds. He earnestly desires our salvation, He

wills and wishes us into the upward spiral of relationship with Him; He has given us spiritual

potential and strength.

Through Him that loved us- The love of Christ is often specifically related to His death for us on the

cross. We can only become ―in Him‖ because He was so fully our representative, including in death

itself. All this wonderful schema of salvation and justification of sinners, counting them as if they

215

are Christ, could only come true because of His death. This was and is the central point of all things;

it is not simply so that Christ as a person is the central means by which all was made possible, but

more specifically it was His love unto death which was and is that central point.

8:38 For I am persuaded- Just as we also need lengthy persuasion as to the ultimate truth that we

are saved in Christ, so Paul too had gone through this process of persuasion. The same word is often

used to describe how Paul ―persuaded‖ people to continue trusting in God‘s grace rather than in

their own works (Acts 13:43; 18:4; 19:26; 26:28; 28:23; 2 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 1:10)- indeed, persuading

people seems to have been a hallmark of Paul‘s preaching. Yet Paul persuaded others on the basis of

how he himself had come to be persuaded; and this will be the characteristic of any truly effective

preacher of the Gospel.

That neither death nor life- In Rom. 8:35 Paul has argued that no suffering nor disaster in our lives

can separate us from ―the love of Christ‖. Now he starts to talk in more cosmic terms, leading up to

the same conclusion- that we cannot be separated or divorced from God‘s love for us which is ―in

Christ‖. For those ―in Christ‖, nothing can stand in the way or change that status; only we can

decide to file for divorce / separation. If we die- we shall be raised again. More tellingly, however,

we may fear that ―life‖ can separate us from God‘s love; Paul may refer to ‗the tribulations of life‘,

but he may also have in view the way we can mess up in our lives. But not even that can separate us

from God‘s love for those who are ―in Christ‖. In what sense could life separate us from God's love?

Surely only in the sense of sins committed in human life. Yet even these cannot separate us from the

love of God which is so ready and eager to forgive us. This is the extent of grace; that not even sin,

which on one hand separate from God, can actually separate us from the love of God in Christ. We

are often plagued by a desire to separate out the things for which we are justly suffering, and things

in which we are innocent victims. We struggle over whether our cancer or her depression is our

fault, or whether we only got into unhealthy behaviours as a result of others' stressing us... etc. This

struggle to understand the balance between personal guilt and being a victim of circumstance or

other people makes it hard for some people to free themselves from guilt. Seeking to understand is

especially acute when we face death, suffering, tragedy, or experience broken relationships. How

much was I to blame? In how much was I merely a victim? My determined conclusion is that it is

impossible, at least by any intellectual process, to separate out that suffering for which we are

personally guilty, and that suffering which we are merely victims of. The cross of Jesus was not

only to remove personal guilt through forgiveness; all our human sufferings and sicknesses were

laid upon Him there. Our burdens, both of our own guilt and those which are laid upon us by life or

other people, are and were carried by Him who is our total saviour.

Angels, principalities, powers- I have argued elsewhere that Paul and the New Testament do not

support the Jewish ideas of sinful Angels operating in various hierarchies and dimensions. Indeed, I

have argued in The Real Devil that Paul consciously deconstructs these ideas. But for now Paul is

prepared to allude to them, as if to say ‗Whatever you fear, whatever you believe is out there,

however you believe it is in the cosmos- the wildest fears of your worst nightmares about the spirit

world are not going to get in the way of God‘s love for those in Christ‘.

Things present nor things to come- Whatever present crises you face, and whatever you may yet

face. Knowing we are secured in Christ enables us not to fear the future. For even death itself, and

all that may lead up to it, emotionally or physically, are unable to affect our ―in Christ‖ status.

―Things to come‖ may refer to the expected latter day tribulation.

8:39 Nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ, as revealed in the cross (Rom. 8:39).

The idea of the love of Christ nearly always refers to the cross. And yet the same word occurs in

Heb. 7:26, to remind us that the Son of God is ―separate from sinners‖. Here again is the paradox.

We are sinners. And yet we cannot be separated from He who is personally separate from sinners.

Again, the conviction of guilt is required so that we can know His saving grace. But it‘s possible to

understand this contradiction as just that- a contradiction. The Lord Jesus is separate from sinners;

216

but nothing shall separate us from Him, although we are sinners. This can be seen as yet another of

the many irreconcilable paradoxes which express the purity of God‘s grace. We have elsewhere

commented upon the way that God angrily speaks of permanently rejecting His people, and yet says

in the same breath almost that He has not and will never reject them, because of His tender love for

them.

Nor height nor depth nor any other creation- ―Height‖ and ―depth‖ may refer to creations supposed

to exist beneath the earth or above the heavens. But no created thing can obstruct God‘s feelings for

us in Christ. Because we are human we tend to view life in a materialistic way; what is visible and

concrete assumes huge importance for us. But no created thing can get in the way of God‘s love for

us- perhaps, the implication being, because this God who so loves us is Himself the creator of all

things. Therefore no created thing, in any dimension, in this world nor any other world or

dimension, can affect His feelings for us.

In exalting about the wonderful power of God in human life through Christ, Paul exalts that ―neither

death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come: nor height (Gk.

hypsoma – the highest point a star reaches) nor depth (Gk. bathos – the abyss from which a star

rises), nor any other creature, are able to separate us from the love of God‖ (Rom. 8:38,39). ―The

position of the stars was supposed to affect human destinies. ‗Whatever the stars may be supposed

to do‘, Paul says, ‗they cannot separate us from God‘s love‘‖ [A.M. Hunter, Romans (London:

S.C.M., 1981) p. 87.]. Likewise by referring to ―any other creature‖, Paul seems to be saying that

there is no reality, nor even any supposed reality in heaven and earth, that can separate us from

God‘s loving power. It seems to me, given the facts that Paul doesn‘t teach the existence of a

personal Satan / demons and so often deconstructs the common ideas about them, that Paul is

effectively saying here: ‗Even if you think these things exist, well they are of utterly no power and

consequence given the extraordinary and ultimate nature of God‘s power‘.

And so the argument is wrapped up. God‘s love for us who are ―in Christ‖ is part and parcel of His

love for Christ Himself, His dearly beloved Son. We will be saved, because we are in Christ. And

totally nothing and nobody, not even our own humanity and failure, can separate us from Him and

His love.

9:3 One of the (many) agonies of Paul's soul was that he felt that his brethren did not appreciate the

depth of love which he had for them. Israel certainly didn't; and he loved them to the same extent as

Moses did, willing, at least in theory, to give his eternal salvation so that they might be saved (Rom.

9:3). The more (Gk. 'the more-and-more-abundantly') he loved Corinth, the less they realized his

love, and the more they turned away from him (2 Cor. 2:4; 12:15); and he so earnestly wished (Gk.)

that the believers in Colosse and Laodicea appreciated how much he spiritually cared for them (Col.

2:1).

"I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the

flesh" (Rom. 9:3). This was the spirit of Moses, in being willing to give his own physical and

eternal life for the salvation of Israel (Ex. 32:30-32). Paul is here rising up to imitate Moses at

perhaps his finest hour- willing, at least in principle, to give up his eternal life for the sake of Israel's

salvation. The extent of Paul's love for natural Israel does not come out that strongly in the Acts and

epistles; but this allusion to Moses says it all. The RVmg. renders Rom. 9:3: ―I could pray…‖, more

clearly alluding to Moses‘ prayer that the people might enter and he be rejected. Yet Paul perceived

that God would not accept a substitute offering like that; and hence he says he could pray like this.

In essence, he had risen to the same level. Likewise he wrote in 1 Thess. 2:8 RV that he was ―well

pleased [i.e. theoretically willing] to impart unto, you not the gospel of God only, but our own souls,

because ye were dear unto us‖. He perceived the difference between mere imparting of the Gospel

in preaching, and being willing to give ones‘ soul, ones salvation, because of a heart that bleeds for

others. No wonder Paul was such a convincing preacher, with such love behind his words.

217

Paul had the spirit of Moses when he could say that he could wish himself accursed from Christ for

the sake of his Jewish kinsmen. He was willing in theory to give up his salvation for them, even

though he knew that in actual fact this is not the basis on which God works. He emphasizes that he

is not using mere words: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not [note the double emphasis], my

conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 9:1-3). The Holy Spirit confirmed that

what he felt in his conscience for them was in fact valid; this really was the level of devotion Paul

reached for a nation who systematically worked for his extermination, and even more painfully, for

the infiltration and destruction of his lifetime's work. The Jewish infiltrators had indirectly had their

effect on Corinth, who mocked and denigrated the Paul who would have laid down his life for them.

And yet time and again he calls them his brethren, he sees them as an innocent Eve in Eden, about

to be beguiled by the snake of the Jewish infiltrators; he sees them as a chaste virgin. But remember

how they denigrated him, in the cruellest ways. Yet his love for them was surpassing.

9:14- see on Rom. 13:12.

9:17- see on Phil. 2:15.

In the same way as Pharaoh hardened his heart, so natural Israel have done (Rom.9:17,18 cp. 11:7

A.V.mg.). They will therefore receive the punishment that will come upon their enemies.

When we read His word, we hear His voice. 1 Kings 13:21 speaks of us hearing "the mouth of

God". Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord" (2 Chron. 36:12). His word brings Him that

near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Thus "Scripture" is put for "God" (Rom. 9:17; Gal.

3:8) and vice versa (Mt. 19;4,5). When we speak and preach God's word, we are relaying God's

voice to men, and should make appropriate effort to deport ourselves as the ministers of His word

and voice- not to mention diligently ensuring that our expression and exposition of His word is

correct and not fanciful. We are to speak / preach "as it were oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11 Gk.). We

are His voice to men in our preaching of His word.

9:19 There are several links between Romans 9:14,19,20 (about apostate Israel) and Job:

Romans 9 Job

:19 "Thou (the Jews) wilt say then unto

me, Why doth He yet find fault (with

Pharaoh and the Jews)? For who hath

resisted His will? The Jews were saying

that it was God's pre-ordained purpose

that they should be His people,

therefore their behaviour was excusable.

"He is..mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself

(NIV "resisted" ) against Him, and hath prospered?".

Job's reasoning is similar to that of the Jews-

effectively he too is asking why God is finding fault with

him (9:4).

:20 ―O man, who art thou that disputest

(AVmg.) with God"

This is what Job desired to do: "I would order my cause

before Him, and fill my mouth with arguments... there the

righteous might dispute with Him" (23:4-7 cp. 9:3).

:14 "Is there unrighteousness with God?

God forbid" . The context is that the

Jews were saying that their Calvinistic

view of predestination allowed them to

sin yet still remain God's people.

By Job saying "It profiteth a man nothing that he should

delight himself in God" because he is either predestined

to salvation or not, Job provoked the comment from

Elihu "Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness;

and from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity"

(34:10). The link between this and Rom. 9:14 shows that

Job had the same mentality as the Judaizers, and was thus

also shown the blasphemous conclusion to which his

218

reasoning led.

9:23 In the context of the Assyrian invasion, Is. 10:20-23 prophesied that ―the remnant of Israel‖,

those who survive it, will trust in the Lord alone and ―in truth‖, i.e. in covenant relationship with

Him. It seems that all others of natural Israel will perish (as in Is. 4:2-4). This language of the

remnant ‗returning‘ unto the Lord is quoted in Rom. 9:23 about the repentance of the Jewish people

and their turning to Christ. Israel were intended to repent because of Sennacherib‘s invasion (Is.

37:31,32), and then ―the consumption‖ of God‘s plan could have happened. But the prophecy has

been reinterpreted with reference to Israel in the last days, repenting finally as the result of the latter

day Assyrian invasion.Isaiah 10 speaks of how Israel‘s affliction by Assyria leads them to

repentance; a ―remnant shall return… unto the mighty God‖ (Is. 10:21)- and the ―mighty God‖ has

just been defined in Is. 9:6 as a title for the Lord Jesus. This will be a result of God using the

Assyrian invader to ―make a consumption… in the midst of all the land‖ of Israel (Is. 10:23). The

―yoke‖ of Assyria ―shall be destroyed because of the anointing‖ (Is. 10:27)- i.e. the coming of

Christ, the anointed one, in response to the remnant returning unto Him.

The faithful learn by the condemnation of the wicked. The very existence of ―the vessels of wrath

fitted to destruction‖ is in order to ―make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy‖

(Rom. 9:22,23 RV). After the experience of Divine judgment, "ye shall be comforted concerning the

evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem"; and yet these are exactly the words used to describe how

God will be 'comforted' after the judgments (Ez. 5:13; 14:22). We will come to share God's

perspective through our experience of the judgment process. It will teach us to be like Him, to see

things from His viewpoint. As a result of it, the struggles we have over "why…?" so many things

happened will be resolved. The purpose of the judgment is not only to convict us of our sinfulness,

but also to make us appreciate our own righteousness for what it was and is. The faithful almost

argue back with the Lord when He points out to them their righteous acts; they were done within a

spirit of service that simply didn't see them as He does.

9:24- see on 1 Thess. 4:7.

The prophecy of Hos. 2:23 about Gentiles is quoted in Rom. 9:24-26 about apostate Israel. See on

Jn. 12:31.

9:27 Paul perceived through the Spirit that Isaiah cried aloud with passion the idea that although

there were many people theoretically "of Israel" in that they were the seed of Abraham, only a

remnant of them would be saved. And Paul implies that this holds true in our dispensation too (Is.

10:22 cp. Rom. 9:27).

One can sense how much Paul felt the passion of God's word. It wasn't just black print on white

paper to him. Thus he speaks of how "Esaias is very bold, and saith... Esaias also crieth concerning

Israel..." (Rom. 9:27; 10:20). Paul had meditated deeply upon Isaiah's words, even to the point of

considering the tone of voice in which he first spoke them. See on Acts 13:27.

9:28,29 An example of Angels shortening a time period (as they will regarding the second coming)

is found in comparing Rom. 9:28,29 with Matthew 24:

Matthew 24 Romans 9

v. 22 "For the elect's sake The seed preserved by the Lord of hosts /

Angels (:29)

Those days shall be shortened v. 28 "He will finish the account (of Israel's

sin), and cut it short in righteousness: because a

short(ened) work will the Lord make upon all

219

the earth (land)"

...[or else] there should no flesh be saved" v. 29 "as Sodom"

Romans 9 is quoting from Is. 28:22 , which is about "a consumption, even determined upon the

whole land. . . from the Lord God of hosts (Angels)". Thus the Angels planned to destroy Israel

even more terribly than they did in AD70, but the "determined" "days" of "consumption" were

"shortened" because the Angels- other ones apart from the destroying Angels?- had preserved a

faithful seed or remnant, which is the theme of the section of Romans where the quotation from Is.

28 occurs. And there must be marked similarities in the last days too. ―The remnant‖ of Israel will

be saved, those who believe in Jesus, ―For the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it

and cutting it short… as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of sabaoth had left us a seed [i.e.

the remnant] we had become as Sodom‖ (Rom. 9:28,29 RV). This associates the shortening of the

last days for the sake of the Jewish remnant. Paul is surely expanding the Lord‘s own words, that

the days will be shortened ―for the elect‘s sake‖. And that ―elect‖, according to Paul‘s inspired

exposition, are the Jews who repent and accept Jesus in the last days. Quite simply, the quicker we

get the remnant of Israel to repent, the quicker the Lord will be back.

9:29 Paul makes the point that for the sake of the tiny group of Jews who did still hold and practice

the truth, Israel would not suffer the judgments of Sodom in totality (Rom. 9:29 cp. Is. 1:9). This

would indicate that there will also be a latter day Jewish remnant which will stop the faithless Israel

of today receiving the judgment of permanent destruction.

God "left" a remnant of faithful believers in apostate Israel (Rom.9:29). Whilst their faithfulness

was obviously a result of their own spiritual effort, God 'leaving' them from apostacy suggests that

He was also active in preserving them from it too. The record does not speak of them saving

themselves from it.

Paul makes the point that for the sake of the tiny group of Jews who did still hold and practice the

truth, Israel would not suffer the judgments of Sodom in totality (Rom.9:29 cp. Is.1:9). This would

indicate that there will also be a latter day Jewish remnant which will stop the faithless Israel of

today receiving the judgment of permanent destruction.

10:1- see on Jude 20.

10:3- see on Rom. 8:7.

10:4 The idea that the Lord Jesus ended the Law of Moses on the cross needs some reflection. That

statement only pushes the question back one stage further- how exactly did He ‗end‘ the Law there?

How did a man dying on a cross actually end the Law? The Lord Jesus, supremely in His death, was

―the end of the law‖ (Rom. 10:4). But the Greek telos [―end‖] is elsewhere translated ―the goal‖ (1

Tim. 1:5 NIV). The character and person of the Lord Jesus at the end was the goal of the Mosaic

law; those 613 commandments, if perfectly obeyed, were intended to give rise to a personality like

that of the Lord Jesus. When He reached the climax of His personal development and spirituality, in

the moment of His death, the Law was ―fulfilled‖. He taught that He ―came‖ in order to die; and yet

He also ―came‖ in order to ―fulfil‖ the Law (Mt. 5:17).

10:8 The Lord foresaw in Jn. 17:20 that there would be those who would believe on Him ―through

their word‖ (i.e. the disciples‘). Our word of preaching can bring others to faith. Our preaching

leads to faith being created in the hearers. ―The word of faith, which we preach‖ (Rom. 10:8) is the

word (Gospel) that leads to faith; and a man cannot believe without hearing the Gospel, and he will

not hear it unless it is preached by a preacher. Paul summarises by saying that faith comes by

hearing [the Gospel] and hearing by [the preaching of] the word of God (Rom. 10:8,14,17). Paul‘s

point is that whoever believes will be saved (Rom. 9:33)- and therefore, we must preach to all, so

220

that they might take advantage of this blessed opportunity. In his repetitious manner, Paul builds up

the argument in this letter:

- Even under the law, Israel could believe God‘s word as preached by Moses and have righteousness

imputed to them (10:5-8)

- We preach, in essence, the very same word (10:9,10)

- Isaiah said the same: that belief of his preaching would result in justification (10:11)

- We preach the same. Whoever believes in the Lord‘s saving Name by baptism will be saved

(10:12,13)

- Therefore preach the word, for without your doing this, people can never believe it and therefore

be saved (10:14,15)

- Israel had heard the word of the cross preached in the past, so just hearing the preacher will not

automatically result in faith (10:16-21). Both preacher and hearer must be aware of this. Therefore

there was a need for the preachers to turn to another wider audience, i.e. the Gentiles.

Note that this passage in Romans 10 reasons that men will only hear the Gospel if there is a

preacher, and yet it also states that all men have heard the Gospel, in fulfillment of the prophesy of

Psalm 19 that the message would go into all the earth. But later in the same epistle, Paul says that he

preached because he wanted to take the Gospel to those ―who have not heard‖ (15:21). There must

be a connection within his thought with what he wrote in chapter 10, about all men hearing the

Gospel through preaching. Surely he understood that the fulfillment of the prophecy that all men

will hear the Gospel is purely dependent upon our freewill effort to preach to all men. This

understanding inspired Paul to press ahead with his plans to expand Gospel work into Spain; and it

should motivate us likewise.

Paul comments that truly Israel have already heard the essence of the Gospel we preach, in that ―the

word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach‖

(Rom. 10:8). He quotes here from Dt. 30:12: ―For this command [to be obedient- or, as Paul

interprets it, the word of the Gospel]... is it not far from thee [cp. how God is ―not far‖ from

anybody, Acts 17:27]. It is not in heaven above, that thou shouldest say, Who will ascend for us into

heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear and do it?‖ (Dt. 30:12 LXX). As Moses spoke these

words on the last day of his life, he was at the foot of Nebo, which he ascended for his final meeting

with God. He is surely alluding to the way in which he had ‗ascended to heaven‘ before in

ascending to God on Sinai, fulfilling Israel‘s wish that he should bring God‘s word to them rather

than God Himself speak with them. He had returned bringing God‘s word to them, to which they

had agreed they would ―hear and do‖. Earlier, in Dt. 5:27, Moses had reminded the people how they

had said: ―Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all

that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it‖. Now he is telling

them that actually the word he had brought to them needn‘t have been brought to them as in essence

it was within their hearts. It is for exactly this reason that Paul could reason elsewhere in Romans

that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law, although they don‘t know the letter

of the Law. And the same principle is found in 1 Thess. 4:9: ―As touching brotherly love, ye need

not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves [i.e. from within yourselves?] are taught of God to love

one another‖. This is rather like how the Gentiles were not ‗written unto‘ and yet they knew from

their conscience the essential spirit of the Mosaic Law.

10:9 Confessing Christ before men applies to baptism, not just bucking up the courage to give

someone a tract at work (Mt. 10:32 = Rom. 10:9,10). Rom. 10;9,10 stresses that belief and

confession are necessary for salvation. This may be one of the many links between Romans and

John‘s gospel, in that Jn. 12:42 speaks of those who believed but wouldn‘t confess. Confession, a

public showing forth of our belief, is vital if we are to be saved. It‘s perhaps worth noting that

baptisms tend often to be attended largely by believers, and be performed indoors, e.g. in a bath at

221

someone‘s home, or a church hall. It‘s quite possible to learn the Gospel, be baptized- and nobody

out in this world ever know. It‘s down to us to ensure this isn‘t true in our case.

I have wondered, and it‘s no more than me wondering, whether it could be that Rom. 10:9,13; Acts

22:16 and the other references to calling on the name of the Lord at baptism imply that the

candidate for baptism made the statement ―Jesus is Lord!‖ after their confession of faith or just

before their immersion, and then they shouted the word ―Abba! Father!‖ as they came out of the

water, indicating their adoption as a child of God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

10:10 With the heart (mind / brain) man believes unto salvation (Rom. 10:10); the early believers

clung to the Lord they had believed "with purpose of heart" (Acts 11:23). They that had not heard

of the cross of Christ were made to see, understand and therefore believe by Paul's preaching (Rom.

15:21). Our appeals likewise must be to the understanding. See on Acts 11:14; Heb. 11:19.

10:12- see on Rom. 3:30.

10:13 The pouring out of the Spirit gifts described in Joel 2 was primarily fulfilled in Acts 2, whilst

looking forward to "the great and the terrible day of the Lord". Thus Joel 2:32 "Whosoever shall call

on the name of the Lord shall be delivered" was fulfilled primarily in the first century too; it is

quoted in Rom.10:13 in this connection.

10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe

in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14).

This clearly states that (as a general rule) it is impossible to believe in Christ without a preacher

(this theme is expanded upon in Christians Unlimited). The Ethiopian eunuch was the classic case

of this. Bible in hand, his exasperation boiled over: ―How can I (understand), except some man

shall guide me?" (Acts 8:31). It is perfectly possible that Rom. 10:4 alludes to this, implying that

this man's case was typical [and notice the connections between Acts 8:37 and Rom. 10:9].

Likewise the Lord Jesus spoke of "them also which shall believe on me through their (the

preachers') word" (Jn. 17:20)- not through their unguided Bible reading. If all we had been given

was a Bible, most of us would simply not be where we are today, spiritually. If I had started reading

from Genesis, I don't think I'd have got much beyond Leviticus before giving up on the Bible. Yet

there are some who have made it through, from Genesis to Revelation. And their testimony is even

more emphatic: "Without doubt I needed someone to guide me, I was just crying out for all the

pieces to be put into place" , in the words of one such recent convert.

10:15 There is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus preaching: ―How beautiful are the feet of him that

preaches the Gospel‖ (Nah. 1:15); but it is quoted in Rom. 10:15 with a subtle change of pronoun:

―How beautiful are the feet of them that preach‖. We are the Lord Jesus to this world, because we

are brethren in Him. This alone is a powerful imperative as to who we are, how we speak, the men

and women we show ourselves to be. Paul is quoting this Old Testament prophecy about Jesus to

prove that we are all ―sent‖ to preach the Gospel. The validity of our commission to preach is quite

simply that Jesus Himself preached; in this way we are all personally ―sent‖ to preach, simply

because He was sent to preach. As the Father sent Him, so He sends us.

10:16 This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied

to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

The theme of Romans is the Gospel, and in this context Paul makes the point that because both Jew

and Gentile are saved by the Gospel, therefore we should preach to both Jew and Gentile (Rom.

10:9-18). In this context, Paul quotes from Is. 52:7 and Nah. 1:15, both concerning preaching to

Israel: "How shall they hear without a preacher? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them

(cp. 'he' in the originals- our preaching is a manifestation of the Lord) that preach the Gospel of

peace, and bring glad tidings". The Nahum passage is in the context of preaching to Israel the good

news of their ultimate freedom from the Assyrian invasion which was then imminent. We are in a

222

strikingly parallel situation in these last days. Rom. 10:16 then goes on to quote Is. 53:1, which

again refers to the preaching of the Gospel to Israel, and applies it to our preaching.

10:17 Faith comes by hearing God‘s word. But we can read God‘s word without faith (2 Tim. 3:15;

Heb. 4:2).

10:18 Paul is doubtless alluding to the great commission here. But he says that it is fulfilled by the

preachers spoken of in Ps. 19:1-4, which he quotes. This speaks of the "heavens" declaring God's

gospel world-wide. In the same way as the sun 'goes forth' all over the world, so will the "heavens"

go forth to declare the Gospel. The 'heavens' do not just refer to the twelve in the first century; the

New Testament says that all in Christ are the "heavenlies"; we are all part of the "sun of

righteousness". The arising of Christ as the sun at His second coming (Mal. 4:2) will be heralded by

the church witnessing the Gospel of His coming beforehand. The enthusiast will note a number of

other preaching allusions in Ps. 19: "The firmament sheweth his handiwork" (v.1) uses a word (in

the Septuagint) which occurs in Lk. 9:60 concerning the publishing of the Gospel. "Their line is

gone out through all the earth" (v.4) is picked up by Paul in describing his preaching (2 Cor. 10:13-

16 AVmg.). The idea of 'going out' throughout the earth was clearly at the root of Christ's great

commission (Mk. 16:15). Yet, as we have said, the ―heavens" to which this refers in Ps. 19 are

interpreted by the New Testament as referring to all believers in Christ.

David was one of Paul's heroes; to the point that David's words are quoted by him with the preface:

"I say..." (Rom. 10:18).

Israel 'heard' the word, and yet they did not ''hearken" to it (Rom. 10:16,18)- we can hear but not

hear. Yet if we really believed that Scripture is inspired, we wouldn't be like this. It is awesome to

reflect how those Hebrew letters, those Greek ciphers written on parchment 1950 years ago, were

actually the very words of God Almighty. But this is the real import of our understanding of

inspiration. Israel literally 'heard' the words of Ezekiel, knowing that a prophet had been among

them- but they weren't obedient. We too can pay such lip service to the doctrine of inspiration- and

yet not be truly obedient to the word we know to be inspired.

10:19 The pronouns often change (in Deuteronomy especially), showing a confusion between the

voice of God and that of Moses. Dt. 7:4 is an example: ―They will turn away thy son from following

me (this is Moses speaking for God)...so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you‖. Thus

Moses‘ comments on God‘s words are mixed up with the words of God Himself. There are other

examples of this in Dt. 7:11; 29:1,10,14,15 (―I‖ cp. ―us‖). Consider especially Dt. 11:13,14: ―If ye

shall diligently hearken unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the

Lord...that I will give you the rain of your land... I will send grass in thy fields‖. The ―I‖ here

switches at ease between God and Moses. The Moses / God pronouns are also mixed in Rom. 10:19.

11:1 Paul‘s positive approach to Israel‘s conversion is reflected in his whole reasoning in Romans

11, his classic statement about preaching to Israel. He begins by saying that God has not cast off His

people Israel totally, because some, e.g. himself, have turned to Christ. So, seeing that God will not

cast off His people Israel in the ultimate sense, it perhaps follows that in every generation some of

them will come to Christ as Paul did (Rom. 11:1,2). In some sense, God has cast off His people (2

Kings 21:14 RV; Zech. 10:6); and yet, because a minority of them will always accept Christ, it is

not true that God has cast off His people in a total sense (Rom. 11:1 RV). It was only because of this

remnant that Israel have not become like Sodom (Rom. 9:29)- even though Old Testament passages

such as Ezekiel 16 clearly liken Jerusalem to Sodom. Yet they are not as Sodom ultimately, for the

sake of the remnant who will believe. Perfectly in this context, Paul draws out the lesson from

Elijah‘s mistake (Rom. 11:2); Elijah had thought that God had totally cast Israel off, but he didn‘t

appreciate that there was a remnant of faithful within Israel. And the existence of that remnant may

likewise have been concealed from the Christian church, Paul is perhaps implying. Only part of

Israel are blind to Messiah; a majority, but not all of them (Rom. 11:5,7,25). I don‘t think that Paul

223

is merely speaking of the situation in the first century, where clearly some Jews did believe. I say

this because Jer. 31:37 clearly states that Israel will never be ―cast off‖; yet, according to Romans

11, Israel are only not cast off because some of them do believe in Christ. The fact Israel are not

now totally ―cast off‖ therefore indicates that there always will be a remnant of faithful Jews-

faithful to God‘s Son and trusting in grace rather than law (Rom. 11:6). Therefore we should be

hopeful that at least a remnant will respond to our preaching to them. The Jews who do not believe

were ―cast off‖ at the very time the world was reconciled to God, i.e. when they crucified Jesus

(Rom. 11:15 cp. 5:10,11). It was through their ―trespass‖ in crucifying Him that salvation came

(Rom. 11:11 RVmg.). And the resurrection and second coming which actualizes that salvation will

only come once they repent (Rom. 11:15). So, Israel as a whole are not ―cast off‖ because of the

remnant of Jews who will always believe in the grace of Christ; but those individuals who crucified

the Lord and uphold that position have cast themselves off from God. The practical upshot of all

this is that we should preach to Israel, with faith that some will repent!

11:2- see on Num. 26:9.

"Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias...?" (Rom. 11:2) suggests that Paul expected them to

know this passage. "What the Scripture saith" rather than "what is written" might suggest that they

learnt these passages by heart and spoke them out loud, probably because the majority of the early

believers were either illiterate or had no access to the manuscripts.

11:3 There is such a thing as feeling lonely when we needn‘t. Elijah is an example of this; he felt

that he was ―left alone‖ faithful in Israel- even though there were another 7,000 who had not bowed

the knee to Baal (Rom. 11:3). The Hebrew in 1 Kings is hard to translate. It could mean that God

reserved 7,000 of Elijah‘s brothers and sisters who potentially would not bow the knee to Baal. Yet

Elijah didn‘t want to see the potential of his brethren. He set himself in a league above them, like

the Psalmist, saying in his haste that all men are liars (Ps. 116:11).

―I, even I only am left" was Elijah's cry to God as he realized the depth of Israel's apostasy (1 Kings

19:10). But this was interpreted by God as a prayer for God to condemn Israel (Rom. 11:2,3). God

read what was in Elijah's heart, and counted this as his prayer. 3 Elijah prayed to God against Israel

when he told Him that he alone was left faithful- i.e. he was asking God to destroy the nation now

(Rom. 11:2,3). Our essential feelings are read by the Father as prayers.

11:4 It may be that Paul's equation of the Jewish believers of the first century with the seven

thousand who refused to worship Baal has a literal application (Rom.11:4) in that there were about

7,000 Jewish believers. By the time of Acts 4:4 "the number of the men (that believed) had come to

be (Greek- not as AV) about five thousand". The only verse that seems to contradict this impression

is Acts 21:20: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe".

However, the Greek word translated "many" is nowhere else translated like this. The sense really is

'You know what thousands believe'- i.e. 'you know the number of Jewish believers, it's in the

thousands'. See on Acts 2:46.

Reflect on how God's mercy is far greater than the mercy of man- even if we are talking about very

loving and spiritual people. Elijah told God that only he was faithful, and the rest of the ecclesia of

Israel had turned away. God said that in His eyes, there were another 7,000 faithful. Paul uses this

as an example of how all of us are like that 7,000- those saved by God's grace (Rom. 11:4,5). So

Elijah was a spiritual man; but by His grace, God thought much higher of Elijah's brethren than

Elijah did.

11:5- see on Rom. 11:1.

11:6 – see on Jn. 4:36.

11:8 The repentance of Israel will be associated with an opening of their eyes to God's word. "The

Lord hath poured out upon (Israel) the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes (quoted in

224

Rom.11:8 concerning Israel's blindness to Christ)... the vision of all (God's word) is become unto

you as the words of a book that is sealed... (but) in that day (of the Kingdom) shall the deaf hear the

words of the book" (Is.29:10,11,17,18). This will be when the book is unsealed at "the time of the

end" (Dan.12:4). It will be in our last days that Israel's blindness starts to be cured, thanks to a

Word-based revival, led by the Elijah ministry.

11:9- see on Acts 1:20.

11:11- see on Rom. 11:1.

Romans 11 speaks all about the conversion of Israel. My summary of the teaching there would be

something like this: Initially, God‘s intention was that ―the Jew first‖ would be saved, then the

Gentiles. But this didn‘t happen. Paul‘s mission to the Gentiles ended up more successful than the

mission to the Jews run by the Jerusalem brethren- perhaps because of their weakness, but this was

how it happened. Thus God has revealed through Romans 11 a kind of re-think in the plan; now, the

success of the mission to the Gentiles would provoke the Jews to conversion. It could be that the

wave of Gentile conversions in the very last days dry up, and lead to Israel‘s conversion, which

heralds the time when all peoples will be saved, or at least ―all Israel‖ both over time and space,

spiritual and natural, will be ultimately saved through the return of Jesus. Thus the conversion of the

Jews, or at least a remnant, heralds the Lord‘s return.

11:12 The whole failure of Israel became "riches for the world." (Rom. 11:12) Nothing is

ultimately wasted or lost. Nothing can be done against the Truth (2 Cor. 13:8). Meditate on your

own life and identify the countless failures through which, especially as you look back over time,

the "invisible" hand of God is discernible.

11:14 In Paul‘s case, being all things to all men meant that at times He sacrificed highest principle

in order to get through to men; He didn‘t just baldly state doctrinal truth and leave his hearers with

the problem of whether to accept it. He really sought to persuade men. He magnified his ministry of

preaching to the Gentiles, he emphasized the possibility of Gentile salvation, ―If by any means I

may provoke to emulation [‗incite to rivalry‘] them which are my flesh [the Jews], and might save

some of them‖ (Rom. 11:13,14). This hardly seems a very appropriate method, under the spotlight

of highest principle. But it was a method Paul used. Likewise he badgers the Corinthians into giving

money for the poor saints in Jerusalem on the basis that he has boasted to others of how much they

would give (2 Cor. 9:2), and these boasts had provoked others to be generous; so now, they had

better live up to their promise and give the cash. If somebody promised to give money to charity and

then didn‘t do so, we wouldn‘t pressurize them to give. And we wouldn‘t really encourage one

ecclesia to give money on the basis of telling them that another ecclesia had promised to be very

generous, so they ought to be too. Yet these apparently human methods were used by Paul. He

spoke ―in human terms‖ to the Romans, ―because of the infirmity of your flesh‖ (Rom. 6:19 NIV);

he so wanted to make his point understood. And when he told husbands to love their wives, he uses

another rather human reason: that because your wife is ―one flesh‖ with you, by loving her you are

loving yourself. ‗And‘, he reasons, ‗you wouldn‘t hate yourself, would you, so – love your wife!‘.

The cynic could reasonably say that this is pure selfishness (Eph. 5:29); and Paul seems to recognize

that the higher level of understanding is that a husband should love his wife purely because he is

manifesting the love of Christ to an often indifferent and unappreciative ecclesia (5:32,33). And yet

Paul plainly uses the lower level argument too.

11:15- see on Rom. 11:1.

11:16 Paul makes an association between Job and Israel in Romans 11:16,17,30:

Romans 11 Job

:35 " Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be Elihu similarly rebukes the self-righteous Job: "

225

recompensed unto Him again?" . This is

countering the Jewish reasoning that they were

self-righteous and were giving their

righteousness as a gift to God, for which

they were blessed.

If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? Or

what receiveth He of thine hand?" (35:7).

Without this key from Job it would be hard to

understand what 'gift' Rom.11:35 was speaking

about.

:16,17 use the figure of roots and branches to

describe the Broken branches refer to

the apostate Jews.

Bildad speaks of the wicked (i.e. Job- 18:4,7

cp.14:18 clearly Jews. refer to him) " his roots

shall be dried up beneath, and above shall his

branch be cut off" (18:16)

11:19 Often the Bible addresses the reader in the second person, as if he is actually present in the

mind of the writer (e.g. Rom. 11:19; 14:15; 1 Cor. 7:16; 15:35). Such personalizing of Scripture is

essentially how to study the Bible.

This is an apparent horticultural blunder. A dead, rejected branch can't get life by being tied on to a

living tree. But in the miracle of Israel's latter day redemption, this is how it will be.

11:22- see on Mt. 3:7.

11:24- see on 2 Cor. 4:4.

Paul's parable of the Olive tree in Rom.11 warns that in some ways the Jewish branches are

preferable to the Gentile ones (11:24; 3:2; Jn.4:22). Because we stand by faith, "be not highminded,

but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee" (v.20,21). By

the use of 'thee' (singular) rather than 'you' (plural) the impression is being given that each Gentile

believer is hanging on to his place in God's purpose by the skin of his teeth, compared to the Jews.

"I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your

own conceits" (v.25).

11:25 The "times of the Gentiles" (Lk. 21:24) appears to refer to the time of Gentile opportunity to

learn the Gospel, according to how Paul alludes to it in Rom. 11:25.

The Gospel is fulfilled by preaching it. And the Gospel is essentially the promises to Abraham,

about all nations being blessed. This promise is fulfilled in our preaching of it- which is why the

Acts references to the disciples being " multiplied" consciously refers to the fulfilment of the

promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed. ―The fullness of the Gentiles‖ (Rom.

11:25) also refers to this idea of the final number of converted Gentiles being a fullness or

fulfilment- of the promises to Abraham. But that fulfilment, as with that of many prophecies, is

dependent upon and according to our preaching of the Gospel. See on Lk. 14:23.

11:25,26 Although Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, I understand Rom. 11:25,26 to mean that he

preached to the Gentiles motivated by the knowledge that when the full number of the Gentiles had

―come in‖, then ―all Israel‖ would be saved by the Jews then turning to Christ. The conversion of

Israel was primary in his thinking. In any case, although he was the apostle to the Gentiles rather

than the Jews, he usually sought to offer the Gospel to ―the Jew first‖ in his missionary work. He

tried ―by any means‖ to provoke Israel to acceptance of Christ (Rom. 11:14). This alone indicates

how we should preach to Israel!

11:26 The Lord will come to those who have turned from ungodliness in Jacob (Is. 59:20); although

Paul's citation of this is deliberately altered to teach the truth that the majority of Israel will not turn

before He comes. To them He will come and turn ungodliness away from them (Rom. 11:26).

In the final conflict between Israel and her enemies, God's confirmation of men will be clearly seen.

The Gentile nations will be gathered to make the final invasion by the Lord's evil spirits confirming

226

their evil spirit, whilst the repentant remnant of Israel will be confirmed in their regrets by having

"the spirit of grace and supplications" poured on them (Zech. 12:10), i.e. a desire and ability to

powerfully supplicate the Father for forgiveness. If men wish to turn from their sins, God will turn

them. Thus "the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob"

(Is. 59:20) is changed by the Spirit into: "There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn

away ungodliness from Jacob" (Rom. 11:26). Those who turn from sin are turned from sin by the

Lord. The blessing promised to Abraham was not only forgiveness of sins, but that the Lord Jesus

would turn away Abraham's seed from their iniquities (Acts 3:26). Yet we only become Abraham's

seed by repentance and baptism. Our repentance and desire not to sin is therefore confirmed after

our baptism.

Be aware that many NT passages mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e.g. "The

deliverer will come from Zion" (Rom. 11:26) is a conflated quotation of Ps. 14:7; 53:6 and Is.

59:20. See on Heb. 13:5.

11:30 The Gentiles "have now obtained mercy (i.e. the merciful opportunity to hear the Gospel)

through their (Israel's) unbelief. Even so have these (Israel) also now not believed, that through your

mercy they may obtain mercy" (Rom. 11:30,31). "Mercy" here cannot be read on a surface level; it

cannot be that by showing mercy, another race may obtain mercy. "Mercy" is surely being used as a

figure for the preaching of the Gospel. Through our mercy to them in this way they can obtain

mercy.

11:31 In the context of Israel's latter day repentance we read some admittedly strange words: (The

Jews) have ...not believed, that through your (Gentile believers) mercy, they also may obtain mercy"

(Rom. 11:31). Could this not mean that Israel's reconciliation to God is partly dependent on our

"mercy" in preaching the Gospel to them? And now consider Peter's words to Israel: "Repent ye

therefore, and be converted, that (firstly) your sins may be blotted out... and (secondly) he shall send

Jesus Christ" at the second coming (Acts 3:19,20). Does this not suggest that Christ's eager desire

for the second coming is limited by our preaching to Israel?

11:32- see on Rom. 5:20.

God works out His plan of salvation actually through man‘s disobedience rather than his obedience.

As Paul puts it, we are concluded in unbelief, that God may have mercy (Rom. 11:32). It was and is

the spirit of Joseph, when he comforted his brothers: ―Now do not be distressed or angry with

yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life‖ (Gen. 45:5). And

again, speaking about the sin of Israel in rejecting Christ: ―Their trespass means riches for the

[Gentile] world‖ (Rom. 11:12). Or yet again, think of how Abraham‘s lie about Sarah and

unfaithfulness to his marriage covenant with her became a source of God‘s blessing and the curing

of Abimelech‘s wife from infertility (Gen. 20:17- I read her infertility as a state that existed prior to

the incident with Abraham). The righteousness of God becomes available to us exactly because we

have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23,24). If we lie, then through our lie the

truth and glory of God is revealed (Rom. 3:7). The light comes into the world- the light of hope of

salvation, forgiveness, of God in Christ- but this light reveals to us our verdict of ‗guilty‘ (Jn.

3:18,36).

The references to "all" being saved seem to be limited by the context- and "all" rarely means 'every

single one', e.g. "all" Jerusalem went out to hear John the Baptist and were "all" baptized by him. I

don't suppose the city was left deserted. The only passage which appears to have some bearing is

Rom 11:32: "For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all". But

the context speaks of how both Jews and Gentiles will be saved- not every Jew and Gentile that's

lived, but those who accept the Gospel. And how does God have mercy? The preceding verse

clarifies: "even so have these also now been disobedient, that by your mercy they also may now

obtain mercy" (Rom 11:31). Surely the mercy we show to the Jews is preaching the Gospel of

227

God's mercy to them. Their obtaining mercy depends upon our mercy. Because God chooses to

work through us as His witnesses. The Jews must obtain salvation in the same pattern as the

Gentiles do: "For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their

disobedience..." (Rom. 11:30). As Gentiles crossed over from disobedience to obedience to the

Gospel, so must the Jews. And in the last days, this will happen: "...and so all Israel shall be saved:

even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness

from Jacob" (Rom. 11:26). This turning away of ungodliness from Israel is required before "all"- i.e.

the redeemed from both Jews and Gentiles- can be saved. But the turning away of ungodliness

surely implies a repentance of some Jewish people; God won't just save them regardless, they must

turn away from ungodliness.

11:34- see on Job 21:22.

12 See on 1 Thess. 5:3.

12:1 The description of the believer as a ―living sacrifice‖ (Rom. 12:1) alludes to the scapegoat, the

only living sacrifice, which was a type of the risen Lord (Lev. 16:10 LXX = Acts 1:3). As the Lord

ran free in His resurrection, bearing away the sins of men, so we who are in Him and preach that

salvation can do the same. As Christ bore away our iniquities (Is. 53:11), so ―we then that are strong

ought to bear the iniquities of the weak‖ (Rom. 15:1).

Having spoken of the surpassing love of God in Christ, Paul urges that it is ―your reasonable (Greek

‗logikos‘ - i.e. logical) service‖ to totally dedicate ourselves to Him in response (Rom. 12:1). The

word ‗‗logikos‘ is derived from the Greek ‗logos‘, which is the word normally translated ―the word‖

with reference to God‘s Word. Our ―logical‖ response in Biblical terms is therefore one which is

derived from God‘s Word.

Christ is the supreme priest; but because we are ―in Him", we too have some part in the priesthood.

Note how the priests are described in language relevant to the Lord: "The law of truth was in his

mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn

many away from iniquity" (Mal. 2:6). Thus we must "present (our) bodies a living sacrifice" to God

(Rom. 12:1); making the believer "the offering and the priest", as Christ was (and is). We are our

own priests. This must have been a radical idea to those early Jewish Christians. Yet this is what

Paul and Peter were driving at when they said things like: " Ye also are an holy priesthood, to offer

up spiritual sacrifices... present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is

your reasonable (Gk. logikos) service (service is priestly language)" (1 Pet. 2:5; Rom. 12:1). They

were saying: 'You're your own priest now!'. And the early believers found it hard to cope with. Have

you considered that the most common form of apostasy (i.e. leaving the true Faith) in the early

church was going back to the Jewish Law, with its system of priests? Natural Israel likewise totally

failed to live up to God's desire that they should be a Kingdom of priests. They left it all to their

priests. They didn't teach every man his neighbour and his brother, saying, Know the Lord (Heb.

8:11; even though when He re-accepts them, God will count them as if they did). Although it was

God's original intention that each family leader sanctified themselves and slew the Passover lamb

personally, they came to delegate this to their priests (so 2 Chron. 30:17 implies). See on Mt. 5:29.

Our part in the promises should enable us to live Godly in this present evil world. Ps. 89:1-3 records

David breaking forth into joy simply because of the promises made to him. Although Israel were in

covenant relationship with God, there was no "truth nor mercy nor knowledge of God in the land" ,

but rather the very opposite: swearing, lying etc. (Hos. 4:1,2). If they had truly believed the "mercy

and truth" of the promises to Abraham and the covenant based around them, they would have been

merciful and truthful. But they knew these promises but didn't believe them. Having expounded the

deeper aspects of the promises to Abraham in Romans 9-11, Paul spins the argument round to

practical issues: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God [a technical term for the

228

promises- 'the sure mercies of David', Is. 55:3], that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice" (Rom.

12:1).

We must be living sacrifices, devoted to the Lord (Rom. 12:1); but if we flunk out of this: "His own

iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins" (Prov.

5:22). We're a sacrifice either way, tied up without the freedom of movement as we would wish.

There's therefore and thereby an element of sorrow, either way in life: "Godly sorrow worketh

repentance to salvation not to be repented of (i.e. that gift you will really, eternally enjoy): but the

sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Cor. 7:10).

12:2 Psychotherapists have powerfully pointed out the difference between the real, essential person-

and the personas, or personages, whom we live out in the eyes of others. We humans tend to pretend

to be the person others expect of us, we act out the person we feel our society or upbringing

demands of us, rather than ‗being ourselves‘. Truly did Shakespeare write [from a worldly

perspective] that all the world‘s a stage, and we are merely the players / actors. And as Napoleon

said, ―One becomes the man of one‘s uniform‖; the persona, the act we live, comes to influence the

real self, the real person, like the clown who can‘t stop clowning around offstage. In Biblical terms,

we allow the world to push us into its mould, psychologically and sociologically, rather than

allowing ourselves to be transformed by the renewing of our minds by the things of God‘s word and

His Son (Rom. 12:2). We so easily allow the world to squeeze us into its mould, rather than being

personally transformed by our relationship with the Lord (Rom. 12:2 J.B. Phillips).

12:3 There was exhortation to ―seek the best gifts‖; and yet they were distributed ―according as God

hath dealt to every man [according to] the measure of faith‖ (Rom. 12:3 and context). God doesn‘t

just ‗give‘ men faith. But He gave to each of them in the early church gifts which reflected the

measure of faith shown by the individual believer. How much they could achieve for their Lord was

limited by their faith.

12:8- see on 2 Cor. 1:12.

12:11 Paul warns the Romans not to be like the lazy servant in the parable (Mt. 25:26 = Rom.

12:11).

12:13 The amount of travel by the early brethren was extraordinary, and could only have been

impressive to the world around them. The same could be said of us today, regularly travelling for

days across Russia and North America to attend gatherings, flying and hitch hiking around Africa to

meet each other… driving hours to meeting. The NT letters feature passages which served as letters

of recommendation (Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 16:10-12 cp. Phil. 2:25-30; Col. 4:7-9; Eph. 6:21; Philemon

22; Rom. 15:24). Thus hospitality became a required Christian virtue (Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet.

4:9; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8). Even ordinary Christians could count on this hospitality. Yet ―security and

hospitality when travelling had traditionally been the privilege of the powerful, who had relied upon

a network of patronage and friendship, created by wealth. The letters of recommendation disclose

the fact that these domestic advantages were now extended to the whole household of faith, who are

accepted on trust, though complete strangers‖. This was the practical outcome of the doctrines

believed; a member of the ekklesia of God would be welcomed as a brother or sister in Laodicea,

Ephesus, Corinth or Rome. And so it largely is amongst us today.

12:14 We must bless / forgive those who persecute us (Rom. 12:14; blessing and forgiveness are

closely linked in Scripture). This is clearly to be done without waiting for the persecutor to stop or

repent. Forgiveness without repentance has to be offered.

12:16- see on Mt. 25:15.

12:18 The majority of the pressures in Paul's life came from within the ecclesia. His life was based

amongst the ecclesias; thus to him "all men" were the believers, not the world as a whole (Mk. 9:50

= Rom. 12:18).

229

Conflict in the ecclesia shouldn‘t actually surprise us. We should expect it. For it was the ecclesia of

Christ‘s day who were the ones who rejected Him. ―As much as depends on you, live peaceably

with all men‖ (Rom. 12:18) surely suggests that Paul saw conflict with others as arising due to

others‘ attitudes over which we have no control. Paul's inspired wording tacitly accepts that we

often cannot live in peace with others because it's not possible given their failures; but we can

change our attitudes, this is the point.

12:19 We must remember that ―Vengeance is mine [not ours, not the state‘s], and requital" (Dt.

32:35). That taking of vengeance, that requital, was worked out by God on the cross. There the Lord

Jesus was clothed with the ‗garments of vengeance‘ (Is. 59:17); the day of the crucifixion was ―the

day of vengeance" (Is. 63:4). This is one reason why God doesn‘t operate a tit-for-tat requital of our

sins upon our heads- because He dealt with sin and His vengeance for it in the cross, not by any

other way. Hence David calls Yahweh the ―God of revenge", the one alone to whom vengeance

belongs (Ps. 94:1,3). Our response to all this is to believe that truly vengeance is God and therefore

we will not avenge ourselves (Rom. 12:19). I take this to apply to all the micro-level ‗takings of

vengeance‘ which we so easily do in our words, body language, attitudes etc., in response to the hurt

received from others. The cross alone enables us to break the cycle.

12:20 - see on Ps. 140:9,10.

Christ's transfiguration was a cameo of the change that should be apparent deep within us (Rom.

12:20 = Mt. 17:2 Gk.).

The fire of condemnation at the judgment has already been kindled by men's attitudes now

(Lk.12:49), and hence by doing good to such men when they abuse us we (now) "heap coals of fire

on his head" (Rom.12:20); note that "thine enemy" here must therefore refer to someone who is

responsible, i.e. in the ecclesia (cp. 2 Thess.3:15, which implies 'an enemy' was first century

vocabulary for a shunned and rejected false teacher). See on Jude 23.

We are to be unconditionally kind to even our enemies, so that we may heap coals of fire upon their

head (Rom. 12:20). I don't understand this as meaning that our motivation for such kindness should

be the gleeful thought that we will thereby earn for them greater and more painful condemnation at

the last day. Such motives would surely be foreign to all we have seen and known in the Father and

Son. Rather am I attracted to the suggestion that there is a reference here to the practice, originating

in Egypt, of putting a pan of hot coals over the head of a person who has openly repented. In which

case, we would be being taught to show grace to our enemies, in order that we might bring them to

repentance. This would chime in with the teaching elsewhere in Romans that God's goodness leads

us to repentance (Rom. 2:4). And this is how we should be, especially with our brethren. The idea of

excluding our brethren seems to me the very opposite of the spirit of grace which we have received.

Paul quotes the words of Prov. 25:21,22 in Rom. 12:20: "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread

to eat... for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head‖. But he omits to apply the last part of Prov.

25:22 to us: "And the Lord shall reward thee". Paul's point is that we should not resist evil, leave

God to glorify His Name- and enable this to happen, without seeking for a personal reward for our

righteousness. Thus Prov. 25:21,22: ―If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat... for thou

shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee‖ is quoted in Rom. 12:20, but

with the pointed omission of the last clause: "The Lord shall reward thee". It's as if Paul is saying:

'The condemnation of the wicked, when God, not you, pours out His vengeance, will glorify Him.

So do your part to bring this about, don't worry about the reward you're promised so much as the

bringing about of His glory'.

13:1

Elders And Romans 13

230

The question has been asked as to how the words of Romans 13 can stand true, with their

implication that Government ministers are God‘s representatives, punishing sinners and upholding

righteousness, and therefore should be obeyed. Many young brethren are pressured by such

ministers to join armies and in other ways too, to break the law of Christ. How, for example, could

those words have been true in Hitler‘s Germany or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?

First it must be remembered that there are other passages which do command our submission to

human authorities: ―Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord‘s sake: whether it be

to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of

evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye

may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of

maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.

Honour the king‖ (1 Pet. 1:13-17). Whilst these words stand true, Peter himself also disobeyed

human authority, with the comment that we must obey God rather than men. When there is a

conflict in allegiance created, we must obey God and disobey anyone or any institution that

commands us to disobey Him. And Paul likewise- the man who was jailed repeatedly for breaking

the law: ―Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be

ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all

meekness unto all men‖ (Tit. 3:1,2).

But the Romans 13 passage goes much further, saying that these ―ministers‖ are ordained by God on

His behalf, and therefore must be obeyed. Logically, therefore, one would have to obey whatever

they said. Otherwise we would always be having to decide whether or not a Government minister

was really ordained in God‘s behalf, or not. And Romans 13 seems to imply that all ministers are

―ministers of God‖. And so for this passage I wish to suggest that it specifically refers to submission

to the elders and apostles of the first century ecclesia, empowered as they were with the miraculous

Spirit gifts and direct revelations of wisdom and judgment.

There is great stress in Rom. 13 that these ―powers‖ punish evil / sinfulness. This is just not true of

human Governments. Yet it is appropriate if the ―powers‖ spoken of here are within the ecclesia. So

we will consider the passage phrase by phrase- and we find that almost every Greek noun or verb in

it is used elsewhere in a specifically ecclesial context.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (:1).

The Greek for ―Higher‖ means ‗to excel, to be superior, better than, to surpass‖. The same word

occurs in Phil. 2:3: ―Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let

each esteem other better than themselves‖. We may respect human ministers but we can scarcely

esteem them better than ourselves in a spiritual sense. Yet authority held by ecclesial elders is earnt

and not demanded- based on our respect of them as brethren more mature in Christ than we are.

For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained…

―Powers‖ is s.w. [same word] 2 Cor. 10:8 ―our [apostolic] authority‖; ―the power which the Lord

hath given me‖ (Paul; 2 Cor. 13:10). ―Not because we [the apostles] have not power‖ (2 Thess. 3:9).

Those powers are ―ordained‖- s.w. Acts 15:2 , where Paul and Barnabas were ―determined‖, s.w.

―ordained‖, to go to Jerusalem as representative elders; the family of Stephanas ―addicted

themselves‖, literally ‗ordained themselves‘, to the work of ministry in the ecclesia. Note how here

as in Rom. 13, the ideas or being ordained to be a minister also occur together.

[ordained] of God

In the sense of 1 Cor. 12:28: ―And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily

prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities

of tongues‖.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth… (:2)

231

Alexander ―hath greatly withstood [s.w. resisteth] our words‖ (2 Tim. 4:15)- the words of elders like

Paul. This doesn‘t mean that elders are beyond any criticism- for the same Greek word is used of

how Paul ―withstood‖ Peter when he gave in to legalism and rejected grace (Gal. 2:11).

the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not

a terror… (:2,3)

―Terror‖ translates the Greek word used for how ―fear‖ came upon the ecclesia when the elders

exercised their powers of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:43; 5:5,11). Initially, Corinth showed such ―fear‖

towards Paul (2 Cor. 7:11,15). Elders should rebuke publically those who sin, that others in the

ecclesia might ―fear‖ (1 Tim. 5:20). The situation in the first century as far as the authorities of the

world are concerned was actually the very opposite of what we read here in Romans. The same

word occurs in 1 Pet. 3:14, telling the believers to endure persecution from the authorities, not to

cave in to their demands, and ―be not afraid of their fear‖. Note that the Greek word for ―afraid‖

occurs in Rom. 13:3- we should be ―afraid‖ of the powers God has placed in the ecclesia. The fact

the two words occur together in both Romans and Peter leads us to the conclusion: ‗Respect and

―fear‖ those who are elders truly; but don‘t fear / respect those who are elders in name only and are

in reality far from grace‖.

[not a terror] to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? (:3)

The Greek word for ―afraid‖ is the same word in Gal. 2:12, which criticizes Peter for being ―afraid‖

of the Jerusalem elders who were teaching legalism. Paul doesn‘t mean we should fear an elder

merely because they have the office of an elder; but we fear / respect those who are indeed

spiritually ―higher‖ than us.

do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

This certainly isn‘t true of worldly authorities and rulers. They don‘t praise righteousness, and they

certainly didn‘t in the first century. Yet the same word is used in 2 Cor. 8:18 of how Timothy was

―praised‖ in the ecclesias. Good elders and healthy ecclesias will give praise / encouragement to

those who deserve it.

For he is the minister of God (:4)

Gk. Diakonos, sometimes translated ―deacon‖. The word is used 31 times in the N.T., nearly always

about ecclesial elders / ministers / servants. Paul speaks of himself and Timothy with the very same

words: a ―minister of God‖ (2 Cor. 6:4; 1 Thess. 3:2), who therefore ought to be listened to.

…to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain

This seems to be a reference to the ability which some elders had in the first century to execute

physical affliction upon those who were disobedient. Peter smote Ananias and Sapphira dead. Paul

seems to warn the Corinthians that he could ―not spare‖ them if he convicted them of apostacy on

his next visit. It even seems that the sicknesses spoken of in James 5 are a direct result of sinful

behaviour, and the gift of healing could be exercised by the elders in the case of repentance. Jesus

Himself threatened immediate physical judgment, presumably through the hands of His

representatives, upon some in the ecclesias of Rev. 2,3. Respect for elders is something taught

throughout the N.T. letters- ―remember them that have the rule over you‖ (Heb. 13:7). Here the

writer clearly refers to elders in the ecclesia, for he bids his readers consider the end of those men‘s

faithful way of life and to follow their example. And yet they are described as ‗rulers‘. It‘s as if the

point is that the real rulers of a first century believer were not the Roman administrators, but the

ministers of God within their ecclesia. In illiterate ecclesias or those without access to the written

scrolls containing God‘s word, the elders would have played a more critical role in their relationship

with God than in our age.

232

…for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye

must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye

tribute also (:4-6)

This could be referring to the Lord‘s well known example of paying tribute, and simply saying that

the principle of submission to authority should extend out of the ecclesia, to all those who have

power over us- so long as this does not contradict our conscience toward Christ. But it could also be

a reference to some form of tithing or regular support of elders. There is historical evidence that this

went on early in the Christian church.

―Be subject‖ uses a Greek word elsewhere used about submission to elders (1 Cor. 16:16). Note

how the word occurs in 1 Cor. 14:34- the sisters were commanded ―to be under obedience‖ to their

men [Gk.]. I take this to refer to the need for those sisters to be submissive to their appointed elder.

When we meet the word again in the command ―Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,

as unto the Lord‖ (Eph. 5:22,24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1,5), I take this as meaning that they

should treat him as they would an elder- in that Paul assumes he will teach and inspire her as the

elders ought to have been doing.

for they are God‟s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing (:6)

The question arises, what thing? If the reference is to their reflecting of God‘s judgment against

those who sin, this is simply not true of human Governments. The first century authorities were

persecuting the Christians, fabricating untruth against them, killing them, and insisting that those

who refused to accept Caesar as Lord be punished. The words can only be true of the ministers of

God of whom we read elsewhere in the N.T.- i.e., the ecclesial elders.

The Greek phrase for ―attending continually‖ is a catchphrase usually employed to describe the

zealous pastoral care of the early apostles: ―These all continued with one accord in

prayer…continuing daily with one accord… and breaking bread… we will give ourselves

continually to prayer, and to the ministry [another Romans 13 idea!] of the word‖ (Acts 1:14; 2:46;

6:4). By using the phrase, Paul is undoubtedly pointing us back to the example of the early apostles

/ elders.

Render therefore to all their dues (:7)

The Greek for ―dues‖ is found in Rom. 15:27 about the due which the Gentile believers owe to

materially support their Jewish brethren. We have no ‗due‘ to this world (Rom. 13:8 Gk., s.w.), but

our due is to love each other in the brotherhood. But admittedly Paul does seem in the next verses to

extend the principle of submission further than just within the ecclesia. In the same way as elders

should only be respected if they had earnt that respect, and were leading brethren in the way of

Christ, so too the authorities of the world should only be followed insofar as they did not lead

believers into disobedience to Christ: ―…tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;

fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he

that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not

kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any

other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy

neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the

law‖ (:8-10).

We must remember that the Romans 13:1 passage about submission to human authority was written

before Nero's persecution of Christians. It seems to be written on the assumption that justice is

being done by officialdom. Romans seems to have been written around AD60. The background

situation in Rome, to which Paul was speaking, needs to be understood if we are to understand Paul

in his context. In AD58 there were major revolts in Rome against the taxation system (as recorded

in Tacitus, Annals 13.50,51). Jews were exempt from paying some taxes (they were allowed to pay

them to the temple in Jerusalem); and Roman citizens also were exempt. There was therefore a huge

233

amount of resentment from the Gentile, non-Roman citizen population who had to pay heavy taxes

(1). It could well be that some of the Roman Christians were tempted to share in this unrest; and

Paul is instead urging them to obey those who had the rule over them, in the sense of paying their

taxes, rendering tribute to whom tribute was due. Ben Witherington, one of academic scholarship's

most well known and learned students of Paul, significantly doesn't see in the Romans 13 passage

any suggestion that Christians should therefore bear arms, as this would contradict Paul's teaching

about non-violent response to evil in the same section of Romans; rather does he understand the

teaching about submission to authorities as being specifically in this taxation context (2).

Notes

(1) Tacitus, Historiae 5.5.1, Josephus, Antiquities Of The Jews 16.45,160-161; references in Ben

Witherington, The Paul Quest (Leicester: I.V.P., 1998) p. 180.

(2) Ben Witherington, The Paul Quest (Leicester: I.V.P., 1998) pp. 178-184. He comments that

"most ancient persons [took] it for granted that governing authorities have their authority from God"

(p. 181). When Paul writes this to the Romans, he could well be quoting a well known maxim- and

thus using it in order to persuade the Roman Christians to pay their taxes.

13:5- see on 1 Jn. 3:18.

13:8- see on Rom. 1:14.

Paul's conception of love to the world around him was clearly rooted in the need to preach to them,

rather than provide material help. He felt he had a debt to love others (Rom. 13:8); yet also a debt to

preach (Rom. 1:14). His debt was to love in the form of preaching.

13:9 Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to

which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he alludes rather than quotes verbatim

reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than

learning them parrot fashion. For example, in Mt. 19:18,19 the Lord Jesus combines two quotations

from the Law: Ex. 20:12-16 followed by Lev. 19:18. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different

point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (Rom.

13:9). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and

mastered it so that he could use it himself.

13:11 God actually saw us as saved right from the beginning of the world; He purposed, and

effectively it was done. Perhaps this is the hardest thing our faith has to grapple with. "Knowing the

time, that for us, the hour already is to be aroused out of sleep" and be resurrected (Rom. 13:11

YLT) may mean (contrary to the implication of the AV) that for us who are with God now, the time

of resurrection and salvation is now with us, and therefore we should live lives which answer to this

fact. The day of salvation is in that sense today (2 Cor. 6:2 Gk.). So sure is God's word that it is as

if the concept of a delay between its utterance and the fulfillment is something not to be considered.

Thus "the vision" is an ellipsis for 'the fulfillment of the vision' in Hab. 2:3. Although our day by

day spirituality fluctuates, God is beyond time. He sees us either as an essentially good tree bringing

forth good fruit, or as essentially bad (Mt. 7:23).

13:12 It‘s been pointed out and exemplified beyond cavil that Paul uses much Essene terminology. I

suggest he does this in order to deconstruct it. When he urges the Roman Jews to ―cast off the works

of darkness and put on the armour of light‖ (Rom. 13:12), calling his converts ―the children of the

light and children of the day‖ (1 Thess. 5:5), Paul is alluding to the Essene ideas. But he‘s saying

that the children of light are to wage spiritual warfare against themselves, their own hearts, quit the

things and habits of the flesh etc. – rather than charge off into literal battle with physical armour

against the Romans. Likewise when Paul insists that God hardened Pharaoh‘s heart (Rom. 9:14–18),

he is not only repeating the Biblical record (Ex. 9:12,16; 33:19), but he is alluding to the way that

234

the Jewish Book of Jubilees claimed that Mastema [the personal Satan] and not God hardened

Pharaoh‘s heart.

13:14 We must even after baptism "put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the

flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rom. 13:14; Eph. 4:14; Col. 3:12,14; 1 Thess. 5:8), even though at

baptism we put on the Lord Jesus (Gal. 3:27; Col. 3:10) and in prospect the flesh was co-crucified

with Christ's flesh (Rom. 6:6,18). By putting off the things of the flesh and putting on the things of

the Lord in our lives, we live out the baptism principle again; and thereby we are "renewed in the

spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4:22-24). See on Col. 2:6.

14:1- see on Rom. 4:19.

Romans 14 and 15 have many allusions back to the earlier, 'doctrinal' part of Romans. Between

them, those allusions teach that we are to be as Abraham; and yet we will be accepted if we can't

rise up to his standard. Rom. 14:1 exhorts us to "receive the weak in faith"- when we have been told

that Abraham was not weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and we should seek to be like him. But we are to

receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it to his level of personal faith. Rom.

14:5 bids us be fully persuaded- as Abraham was "fully persuaded" (Rom. 4:21). Yet, Rom.14:23

says that he who doubts is damned- and Abraham didn't stagger [s.w. Rom. 4:20). Thus ultimately,

he must be our example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his standard, and

unlike him are "weak in faith".

14:4 The first century society was built around the concept of oikonomia, household fellowship. The

head of the house was the leader, and all the extended family and slaves had to follow his religion

and be obedient to him. For slaves, this was on pain of death. However, the call of Christ was to

individuals; in conscious allusion to the oikonomia concept, Paul speaks of how we are the

―household-servants‖ of Christ- not a human master (Rom. 14:4 RVmg.). Individual conversion to a

religion was unheard of at the time. Indeed, religion was something for the wealthy to play with, as

a hobby.

We mustn't judge our brother, because "to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be

holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4). It may be that Paul's implication is that

God is more likely to uphold His failing servant than we would be; therefore, let's not condemn our

brother, because God is more generous-spirited than we are in His judgment.

14:6- see on Acts 18:18.

There is no lack of evidence in the NT that the Lord‘s sacrifice precluded the need to do these

things. And yet Paul and the Council of Jerusalem made concessions to the Jewish brethren who

couldn‘t bring themselves to accept the Truth in these areas, in the hope that continued practice of

these things within the context of the Christian community would make them see for themselves

that they were inappropriate. Paul says that Sabbath keeping is a matter of personal conscience

(Rom. 14:1-10), even though elsewhere he argues so forcibly that to do this is to return to the weak

and beggarly elements. Here, as with the demons issue, there was a clear concession to some degree

of human non-acceptance of Divine truth and the implications arising from it. It seems that although

the Law was done away by the cross, by the time of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 it could still be spoken of as ―that

which is being done away‖ (RVmg.). There was a changeover period allowed, rather than a bald

insistence that acceptance of Christ and the meaning of His death must mean that the old Jewish

ways were dropped instantly.

14:8,9 There are some passages which appear to teach [misread] that we go on living after death. It

has been observed that Rom. 14:8,9 implies that Jesus is our Lord after death as well as in life: ―For

whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live

therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he

might be Lord both of the dead and living‖. We are the Lord‘s after death, in the same way as

Abraham lives unto Him (Lk. 20:38). We are still with Him. He doesn‘t forget us when we die, just

235

as I will remember my mother till the day of my death, regardless of when she dies. But if the Lord

doesn‘t come, I will die, and my memory, my love, my fondness, will perish (for a small moment).

But God doesn‘t die, His memory doesn‘t fade and distort as ours does; images of us don‘t come in

and out of His mind with greater intensity and insistence at some times than at others; He

remembers us constantly and will remember us after our death, right up until when the Lord comes.

Because of this, He is the God of Abraham; Abraham is alive in the mind of God, He remembers his

faith and his offering of Isaac, just as much as He was aware of it in Abraham‘s lifetime. The works

of the dead follow them, in the sense that once they finish their labours their works are still in the

memory of the Father (Rev. 14:13); for what father would not remember his dead child‘s ways and

deeds? This is why Rom. 14:8,9 says that Jesus is our Lord after death just as much as He was and

is during our lifetimes. Why? Because we are ―the Lord‘s‖, because we were ―added to the Lord‖

through baptism (Acts 2:41,47; 5:14; 11:24), because we are true brothers-in-Christ. From God‘s

perspective, the dead believers are cheering us on as we run the race to the end; He remembers them

as they were, and knows how they would behave if they were alive today, looking down upon us as

we run the race (Heb. 12:1). Or in another figure, the blood of the dead believers cries out from

under the altar, demanding vengeance on this world: on the Catholic, Protestant, Babylonian,

Roman, Nazi, Soviet systems that slew them for their faith (Rev. 6:9). To God, their blood is a

voice, just as real as the voice of Abel, which cried out (in a figure) for judgment against Cain (Gen.

4:10). After their death, those who had already died are spoken of as being given ―white robes‖ and

being told to rest a bit longer (Rev. 6:11).

14:9- see on Acts 17:31.

The fact Jesus is Lord has vital practical import for us. In Rom. 14:7-9, Paul speaks of the need not

to live unto ourselves, but to rather live in a way which is sensitive to the conscience and needs of

others. Why? ―For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of

the dead and living". Because He is our Lord we therefore don‘t live for ourselves, but for Christ

our Lord and all those in Him. When Paul in 1 Tim. 6 exalts that Christ is King of Kings and Lord

of Lords, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto, this isn‘t just some literary flourish. It

is embedded within a context of telling the believers to quit materialism, indeed to flee from its

snare.

14:10- see on 2 Cor. 11:2.

We read in Jer. 42:2 of a supplication being ―accepted‖, or ‗to fall down before‘ (RVmg.). To fall

down before the Lord Jesus is to be accepted of Him. Paul speaks of us all standing before the

judgment seat of Christ after first of all casting ourselves down; and this in the context of saying

that God is able to make the weak brother stand in His sight (Rom. 14:4 cp. 10,11). We will all be in

the position of the weak brother. Don't "set at nought" your brother- because the judgment seat of

Christ is coming for you too (Rom. 14:10). We will all be "set at nought" then; that's the

implication. We will all have to be made stand by God's grace. We will all be made to stand, i.e. be

accepted (Eph. 6:11-13; Col. 4:12)- or at least, Paul is saying, that's how you should look at your

brethren, as if they too will be accepted. For if we have no right to condemn our brethren; we must

surely assume they will be accepted. In passing, note how Paul warns in this context that we can

cause our brother to fall down or stumble (Rom. 14:13). Some at the last day will not be ‗stood up‘,

they will remain prostrate and then slink away. And why? Because they will have been made to fall

by their brethren. Our faith and our community of believers is fragile, more fragile than we may

think. In all the pressures of these last days it is so terribly easy to cause each other to stumble, to

fall, with the ultimate consequence that they will not be stood up at the judgment. This is the evil of

causing offence, stumbling, making another to fall down.

14:11 "Every tongue shall confess to God (in Christ)... every one of us shall give account of himself

to God" (Rom. 14:11,12). "Account" is the Greek 'logos'- we will 'logos' ourselves in the sense that

we will verbally confess ("every tongue") the innermost essence of our spiritual lives. This will lead

236

us to confess with our tongue that Christ is really our Lord (Phil. 2:11). Confessing our sinfulness

will lead us to show our appreciation of His Lordship. That which has been spoken or thought in

darkness will then be heard in the light- in that day "there is nothing covered that shall not be

revealed" (Lk. 12:2,3). He will confess our righteous acts, and we will confess our sins (Is. 45:23-25

cp. Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11). For the wicked, it will be the opposite. They confess their righteous

acts, He tells them their sins. And in this way the good and bad deeds of all the responsible will

come to the light.

Is. 45:23 "Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess" is quoted by Paul in Rom. 14:11,12 as

being specifically concerning our position at the judgment seat. It is therefore fitting to read Is.

45:24,25 as being concerning our thoughts then: "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord (Jesus) have I

righteousness and strength... and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed (cp. our earlier

reconstruction of the rejected initially arguing with the Lord in anger, and then slinking away in

shame). In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory". In God's presence

(judgment language: Acts 3:19; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2:19; Jude 24; Rev. 14:10) no flesh will glory, but will

glory in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:29). The RV makes all this even more personal: "Only in the Lord, shall

one say unto me, have I righteousness and strength" (Is. 45:24 RV). The words of grateful

realization will be directed specifically by us to the Lord Himself.

14:12 The connection between Rom. 14:12 and Mt. 12:36 suggests that Paul recognized that we all

speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our

rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you'd better be soft on

your brother now, in this life.

―Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one of us shall give

account" (Rom. 14:11,12) is another example of where 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us

the responsible'. ―The dead‖ will be judged (Rev. 11:18)- not everyone who ever died, but the dead

who, God counts responsible. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men"

(Tit. 2:11)- certainly not to every human being that has ever lived; but to the "all men" of the new

creation. The Lord tasted death "for every man" (Heb. 2:9)- for every one who has a representative

part in His sacrifice through baptism.

14:13- see on Mt. 13:22.

14:14 Paul really did meditate on every word of his Lord. Thus he says he was persuaded by the

Lord Jesus that all foods were clean (Rom. 14:14)- this is how he took the Lord's teaching in Mk.

7:19. Those words lived to Paul, they were as the personal persuasion of his Lord, as if Christ was

talking to him personally through the Gospel records.

14:17 All the law, every possible type of legislation, is comprehended in the one simple law of

loving our neighbour (Rom. 13:9). We aren‘t free to do, dress or speak just as we like; the law of

love binds heavy upon us. The things of God‘s Kingdom don‘t revolve so much around laws (e.g.

about what we should eat and drink) but around ―righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit‖

(Rom. 14:17). It is attitudes which are important rather than specific acts of obedience.

In Ex.33:8 Moses asks to see God's glory, and in reply he is told God will proclaim His Name

before him, which is done in Ex.34:5-7 by the declaration of God's righteous attributes. Solomon

building a temple "For the name of the Lord, and an house for His Kingdom" (2 Chron.2:1) suggests

that God's Kingdom is another manifestation of His Name, because it will be filled with His

attributes. This helps us understand Rom.14:17: "The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink... but

righteousness... joy", i.e. the characteristics of God's Name.

14:19 Lk. 14:32 records the parable of the man with a small army going to meet the General with a

far larger army- and then wisely desiring "conditions (lit. 'things') of peace". The man is clearly us,

and the General coming with His hosts is evidently the Lord Jesus; we are to come to peace with

Him before the final meeting of God and man in judgment. But this Greek phrase 'things of peace'

237

recurs in Rom. 14:19, where Paul speaks of making every effort to live at peace with our brethren,

e.g. being sensitive to their scruples about food. Paul clearly understood that our peace with God

cannot be unrelated to our peace with our brethren. To make peace with God and His Son as

required in Lk. 14:32 must have some practical issue- and practically, it means living at peace with

the rest of God's children.

14:20 Our relationship with the Lord God is personal. Each of us is "the work of God‖, and we

should therefore respect each other's spiritual individuality (Rom. 14:20).

14:21- see on Acts 18:18.

We must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (Rom. 15:7)- and this includes

receiving him who is even weak in the faith (Rom. 14:1). We should be looking for every reason to

receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to. The essence of living this kind of life

is the cross of Christ. Paul brings this out in Rom. 14:21-15:3: ―It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to

drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak…We then

that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one

of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it

is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me‖. The quotation is from a Psalm

which refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet Paul applies this to us, in our bearing with the

weaknesses of our brethren and seeking not to offend them. For this is the living out of the

crucifixion life in ours. This is putting meaning into words, reality into the regular action of taking

bread and wine in identity with that sacrifice. Sensitively bearing with our brethren, not doing

anything that weakens or offends them, but rather building them up by our patience and tolerance of

their scruples and limited perceptions. This is the cross, for us. The more we realize the height of the

calling, the more even like our Lord we balk at what we are really being asked to do. It is so hard

not to offend others and to commit ourselves to only building them up. As hard, in barest essence, as

the cross of Calvary, on a day in April, on a Friday afternoon, about 1970 years ago.

14:23- see on Col. 2:18.

15:1- see on Rom. 12:1.

The Lord Jesus didn‘t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He felt a

sinner, even though He wasn‘t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon

ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we

are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom. 15:1). But in the context of that passage, Paul is

quoting from Is. 53:11, about how the Lord Jesus bore our sins on the cross. We live out the spirit of

His cross, not in just bearing with our difficulties in isolation, but in feeling for our weak brethren.

We should be able to say with Paul that we are indeed co-crucified with Him. For most of us, this

co-crucifixion isn't in terms of literal pain or violent persecution for His sake. So in what terms,

then, are His sufferings articulated in us? Surely, therefore, in our mental suffering with Him. Thus

Paul can quote a prophecy of Christ's crucifixion and apply it to our sufferings as a result of bearing

with our weak brethren (Rom. 15:1-3).

15:2 The ordinary people must take responsibility. Each of us should build up his neighbour (Rom.

15:2)- and ‗neighbour‘ is usually to be understood in the NT as our neighbour within the ecclesia

(Eph. 4:25; James 2:8; 4:12).

15:3 We must soberly ‗think of ourselves‘ as someone who has something to contribute to the rest

of the body, even if first of all we are not sure what it is (Rom. 15:3-8). We feel their weaknesses as

if they are our own. Self interest must die; their wellbeing becomes all consuming. This is why men

like Daniel and Nehemiah could feel that ―we have sinned...‖- not ‗they have sinned‘.

The love of Christ in the cross is to have a continual inspiration upon us- endless love, countless

moments of re-inspiration, are to come to us daily because of the cross. This is how central it is to

238

daily life. The crucifixion prophecy "The reproaches of them that reproached You fell upon me" is

quoted in Rom. 15:3 about Christ's crucifixion; but on this basis Paul appeals to us to please not

ourselves, but to edify our neighbour; and thus the prophecies about Christ's sufferings for us were

written for our learning and encouragement (Rom. 15:2,4,5). This works out as being the case

insofar as we are to see in His sufferings a direct, personal compulsion to us to respond in selfless

service of others. The connexion between Him there on that piece of wood and us today, struggling

to live life in selfless service, is absolutely live, concrete and powerful.

15:3,4 The Scriptures which were relevant to Christ are actually directly applicable to us too, who

are in Christ. Thus Paul reasons: "Christ pleased not himself, but as it is written (he quotes Ps. 69:9),

The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. For whatsoever things were written

aforetime were written for our learning..." (Rom. 15:3,4). So here Paul points out a well known

Messianic prophesy, applies it to Christ, and then says that it was written for us.

15:8 God's covenant commitment to us is amazing. In Genesis 15, He made a one-sided

commitment to Abraham. The idea of the dead animals in the ceremony was to teach that 'So may I

be dismembered and die if I fail to keep my promise'. Jer. 34:18 speaks of how Israelites must die,

because they passed between the pieces of the dead animal sacrifices in making a covenant. But

here in Gen. 15, it is none less than the God who cannot die who is offering to do this, subjecting

Himself to this potential curse! And He showed Himself for real in the death of His Son. That was

His way of confirming the utter certainty of the promises to Abraham which are the basis of the new

covenant which He has cut with us (Rom. 15:8; Gal. 3:17). Usually both parties passed between the

dead animals- but only Yahweh does. It was a one-sided covenant from God to man, exemplifying

His one-way grace. The Lord died, in the way that He did, to get through to us how true this all is-

that God Almighty cut a sober, unilateral covenant with us personally, to give us the Kingdom. We

simply can't be passive to such grace, we have no option but to reach out with grace to others in care

and concern- and we have a unique motivation in doing this, which this unbelieving world can never

equal. From one viewpoint, the only way we can not be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in

this covenant.

15:8,9 - see on Mt. 28:10.

15:10 "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people" (Dt. 32:43) is quoted in the NT (Rom. 15:10)

concerning Gentile response to the Gospel. But they will rejoice and respond because of God's

terrifying judgment of His enemies outlined in the context (Dt. 32:41-44). In some way, the harder

side of God attracts, in that men see in truth that He is God and they but men. His rod and staff of

correction are our comforts (Ps. 23:4). Israel will finally realize that God‘s judgments upon them

have brought them to know Him: ―They shall know that I am the Lord, in that I caused them to go

into captivity‖ (Ez. 39:28 RV).

15:13 Following through Paul‘s reasoning in Rom. 15:9-13, he seems to be saying that ―hope‖ (RV)

leads to joyful praising, which in turn leads to hope and trust. It‘s an upward spiral, a positive circle.

And each of those fruits of the Spirit become more gripping upon us the more we develop them.

15:14- see on Mk. 4:8.

15:16 Rom. 15:16 speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar [note how Acts

11:7 uses the same image of ‗offering up‘ sacrifices to describe preaching]. And this connects with

how Paul had earlier spoken in Rom. 12:1 of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication.

The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the

pattern of the Master whom they learn of.

When we read of ‗ministering‘ in the NT, we are to generally perceive an allusion to the spirit of

priesthood; for it was the OT priests who were understood as ―ministers‖. Paul speaks of preaching

God's word, both in the world and to brethren and sisters, as ministering (Col. 1:23,25; 1 Cor. 9:13).

He saw himself as a minister of the Gospel "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be

239

acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). This is priestly language. Paul saw his efforts for others as preparing a

sacrifice. He says that we are all ministers (cp. priests) of God, stewards of the true Gospel, and

should act appropriately (1 Cor. 4:1). Others gave money to poorer brethren, and again this is

described as ministering, priest-ing (Rom. 15:27; Heb. 6:10). Reminding brethren of basic doctrines

they already know is another kind of ministering (1 Tim. 4:16). Indeed, Peter says that we each

have something to minister to each other, there is some way in which we can each serve each other

(1 Pet. 4:10,11). We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's

iniquity (Num. 18:1,23). This is the meaning of priesthood.

Paul speaks of his preaching as being like a priest bringing the offerings of the Gentile converts as

an acceptable sacrifice to Jerusalem (Rom. 15:16). This is very much the language of the prophets

concerning the Messianic Kingdom- as if to imply that the Kingdom is brought about by our

successful preaching? Hence it is in keeping with this to think that there would be a burst of

conversions to herald in the Kingdom.

Paul speaks of his preaching work as offering up the Gentiles, as if he is a priest (Rom. 15:16)- and

in the same figure, Peter is encouraged to preach to Gentiles by killing and eating animals in a peace

offering (Acts 11:7). The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is

referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (Num.

18:11). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose

hold on the material things of this life. And as we are all priests, we are all preachers.

15:17 No flesh may glory before God (1 Cor. 1:29); but Paul, in his spiritual man, as counted

righteous before God, could glory (Rom. 15:17).

15:18 Paul seems to have consciously modelled his life upon that of Moses; he evidently saw Moses

as his hero. For example, he speaks of how he has been used to bring about God‘s glory through

―signs and wonders‖ (Rom. 15:18,19), in the very language of Moses bringing ―signs and wonders‖

upon Egypt (Ex. 7:3,9; 11:9,10; Dt. 4:34; 6:22). See on 1 Cor. 14:3.

15:19 That the spirit does not just refer to the naked power of God is evident from Rom. 15:19: ―the

power of the spirit of God‖.

Paul speaks of having 'fulfilled' the Gospel by preaching it (Rom. 15:19 Gk.); the Gospel is in itself

something which demands to be preached by those having it.

His desire to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24) indicates a commitment to taking the Gospel to the very ends

of the world he then knew. He may well have been motivated in this by wishing to fulfil in spirit the

Kingdom prophecy of Is. 66:18,19, which describes how Tarshish (which he would have understood

as Spain) and other places which ―have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory‖ will be

witnessed to by those who have seen His glory and have ―escaped‖ from God‘s just condemnation

by grace. Paul sees this as referring to himself. For he speaks in Rom. 15:19 of his ambition to take

the Gospel to Spain; and in that same context, of how he will bring the Gentile brethren‘s offering

up to Jerusalem. This is precisely the context of Is. 66- the offerings of the Gentiles are to be

brought up to Jerusalem, as a result of how the Lord‘s glory will be spoken of to all nations. So Paul

read Isaiah 66 and did something about his Old Testament Bible study; he dedicated his life to

taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, and he encouraged them to send their offerings to Jerusalem. He

was no mere theologian, no academic missiologist. His study and exposition of Old Testament

Scripture led to a life lived out in practice, to hardship, risk of life, persecution, loneliness, even

rejection by his brethren. It is also significant in passing to note that Is. 66:19 speaks of nations

which occur in the list of nations we have in Genesis 10, in the context of the effect of Babel. It is as

if Paul sees the spreading of the Gospel as an undoing of the curse of Babel and the establishment of

the Kingdom conditions described in Is. 66. By his preaching of God‘s Kingdom and the reign of

Christ, he brought about a foretaste of the future Kingdom in the lives of his converts. And we can

do likewise. Note how once again, the preacher preaches from his personal experience; Paul takes

240

the vision of glory which he has beheld to those who have not seen nor heard. Paul speaks of how

he had preached the Gospel from Jerusalem "as far round as Illyricum" (Rom. 15:19). This was a

Latin-speaking province. Was he not implying that he had preached throughout the Greek speaking

world, and now wanted to take it into the Latin-speaking world? He wanted to preach to the regions

beyond his previous limits (2 Cor. 10:15); his aim was to spend some time in Rome and then preach

in Spain.

Preaching, on whatever scale, involves a certain spirit of spiritual ambition; for example, the hope

and faith that a leaflet, a mere piece of paper, might be the means of directing someone on to the

Kingdom road. That a scrappy piece of paper, a passing comment at a bus stop should really lead a

small mortal towards the eternal glory of God's nature... without spiritual ambition the preacher just

wouldn't bother to start. Paul was the supreme model of ambition in preaching: ―I have fully

preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived (been ambitious, RV mg.) to preach the

gospel" (Rom. 15:19,20). In his last days (or hours?) Paul's mind returned to these words. His

swansong in 2 Tim. 4:17 is a direct allusion to Rom. 15:19: "The Lord stood with me, and

strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might

hear". Paul's reference here to 'completing the Gospel from Jerusalem and in a circle as far as

Illyricum' is a window into his ambition in preaching. He speaks of his ambition to preach in Spain;

and so we get the impression of him planning a circle starting in Jerusalem, curving north-west, then

further west to Rome, and then south-west to Spain. To complete the circle to Jerusalem would have

involved him preaching in North Africa- where there were major Jewish centers, e.g. Alexandria.

Perhaps he implies that his ambition was to preach there too, in order to 'complete the circle of the

gospel'.

15:20 Paul read the OT prophecies of how ―to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see‖; and he

didn‘t just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment

of this prophecy depended to some extent on our human freewill; and therefore he strove (against so

many odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (Rom. 15:19,20). And he asks the

Romans to strive together with him in prayer (15:30)- i.e. to join him in the struggle to witness

world-wide, in that they would pray for his success. It was God‘s prophesied will that the Gospel

would go world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings

with God in prayer by the brethren.

15:21- see on Acts 13:47.

Here Paul appropriates a prophecy of how the news of the crucified Christ would spread to those

who had never heard it. He didn‘t just read those verses as prophecy; he saw in them an imperative

to fulfil them. In Rom 15:21, Paul justifies his preaching by quoting from part of the suffering

servant prophecy in Is. 52 / 53. That whole passage is set in a context of explaining ―how beautiful

are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings… all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our

God‖ (Is. 52:7,10). The preaching of good tidings and the declaration of God‘s salvation was

through the crucifixion. Paul quotes Is. 52:15: ―To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and

they that have not heard shall understand‖. This was Paul‘s justification for taking the Gospel to

where Christ has not been named. Note in passing how the Lord Jesus sees us as ―beautiful‖ in our

witness to Him (as in Song 7:1). Yet further into Is. 53, so much else jumps out at us as appropriate

to Paul‘s preaching: ―Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and

be very high [cp. Paul knowing how to be exalted and abased, themes that occur in Is. 53 about

Jesus‘ death]. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man [cp.

Paul‘s thorn in the flesh?], and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many

nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for [that] which had not been told them shall they

see; and [that] which they had not heard shall they consider‖. Paul appeared before Agrippa, Festus,

and one or two Caesars, with a visage marred by his evangelistic sufferings.

241

15:23 There can be no doubt that the emphasis in the life of Paul was upon the geographical spread

of the Gospel as far as possible. In around ten years, he established ecclesias in the four provinces of

Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. And then he speaks as if his work was done in that part of the

world, he had spread the word from Jerusalem round to Illyricum [i.e. throughout the Eastern half of

the Empire], and therefore ―I have no more place in these parts‖ (Rom. 15:19,23). He speaks as if he

has fulfilled the ―line‖ or geographical apportion of areas to him, and now he was turning his

attention to the Western side of the Roman empire, going to Rome, planning a visit to Spain. In

some ways, this is surprising, for his letters indicate that the ecclesias he had already established

were weak indeed. All in Asia turned away from him, and he warned the Ephesian elders of this.

Ecclesias like Corinth were hopelessly weak in doctrine and practice, and many were turning away,

either to the world, or back to Judaism as in the Galatian ecclesias. He could so easily have spent

his life running around the Eastern half of the Roman empire, seeking to strengthen what remained.

But he seems to have considered his work to have been done, and presses ahead with fresh witness

in another part of the world. He wrote letters and made occasional visits to address the problems as

they arose, but his stress was repeatedly on pushing forward with the work.

15:24 His ambition for Spain, at a time when most men scarcely travelled 100km. from their

birthplace, is just superb (Rom. 15:24,28).

He says that if he "satisfied" by the fruit of the converts in Rome, then he could move on to preach

in Spain, if he could seal the spiritual fruit of unity between Jewish and Gentile converts in

Jerusalem (Rom. 15:24 RV). This is the spirit of 2 Cor. 10:15, where Paul told the Corinthians that

"when your faith is increased", then the measure or extent of his missionary work could be

geographically expanded.

15:26 God is believer-centric; to Him, His 'world' is the believers. He speaks of "Macedonia and

Achaia" as meaning 'the believers in Macedonia and Achaia' (Rom. 15:26). ―Samaria… received the

word of God‖ (Acts 8:14)- not everyone in Samaria, but those who did are counted as ―Samaria‖ to

God. The field of the ecclesia is ―the world‖ to God; and note how the Corinth ecclesia were ―God‘s

field‖ (1 Cor. 3:9 Gk.). Often Scripture speaks as if "all men" will be raised. Rom. 2:6-9 speaks of

"every man" being judged at the second coming. We know that literally "all men" will not be.

15:27- see on Rom. 15:16.

All nations of the land were to be blessed because of Abraham and his seed, his one special seed

[Jesus] and also his natural descendants. His children were intended to be a blessing to the other

nations who lived around them, especially in that they were intended to bring them to Abraham‘s

God and Abraham‘s faith. Now this is not to say that ultimately, Abraham and his seed will not

bring blessing on literally the whole planet. Rom. 4:13 interprets the promise of the land of Canaan

as meaning ‗the whole world‘. But this was by later development, and on account of the universal

blessing achieved by the sacrifice of Abraham‘s greatest seed, the Lord Jesus. In the first instance,

the blessing was to be upon all the families who lived on the ‗earth‘ / land (12:3). There is a paradox

here. For those already living in the land promised to Abraham, their land would be taken from

them but they would be blessed. God was telling Abraham: ‗You will possess the land and all

nations of that land will be blessed‘. They were to give up their physical inheritance to receive a

spiritual one- this was the ideal. Paul applies this idea to us when he says that if Gentiles have

received the spiritual blessings of Abraham‘s seed, ought they not to give their physical blessings to

that same physical seed of Abraham? This is how and why he tells Gentile converts in Rome to send

donations to the poor Jewish brethren in Jerusalem: ―For if the Gentiles have been made partakers

of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things… I shall come in the

fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ‖ (Rom. 15:27-29).

15:28 Paul says that he wants to "seal" the fruit of good works from his converts (Rom. 15:28), as if

he wants to give them the opportunity to do good deeds, knowing they will be considered in some

242

form at the judgment. The simple fact is that we simply have to believe that the thousand hard and

easy choices we make each day all somehow count in the ultimate, final analysis.

15:30- see on Col. 2:1.

Paul read the OT prophecies of how "to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see"; and he didn't

just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment of this

prophecy depended to some extent on our human freewill; and therefore he strove (against so many

odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (Rom. 15:19,20). And he asks the Romans

to strive together with him in prayer (15:30)- i.e. to join him in the struggle to witness world-wide,

in that they would pray for his success. It was God's prophesied will that the Gospel would go

world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings with God in

prayer by the brethren.

15:31 After all his spiritual diplomacy in raising the fund, he had to ask the Romans to pray with

him that the Jerusalem ecclesia would accept it (Rom. 15:31). Presumably they didn't want to accept

help from Gentile converts whom they despised. And if they didn't accept it, then Paul would look

as if he had got them to raise the money just to give to him. There must have been times when he

thought of quitting the Christian community because of slander in the church. Paul was not a larger

than life figure in the eyes of the early church. They didn't see him as we do. The harder he worked,

the more he was slandered, and the more painfully.

16:1- see on Rom. 16:23.

16:2- see on Lk. 11:7.

16:4 We read of Priscilla and Aquilla ‗risking their necks‘ for Paul‘s life (Rom. 16:4). According to

Deissmann, this Greek term refers to the possibility of being murdered in the place of someone

condemned to death. Likewise 1 Clement 55 speaks of Christians serving prison terms for each

other: ―We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they

might ransom others‖.

16:7 Junia- maybe Joanna? See on Lk. 8:2.

16:8 Tertius was a ―scribe‖, which was a learned profession; Luke was a doctor. Yet next to these

brethren are listed the likes of Ampliatus (Rom. 16:8), which was a common slave name. Romans

16 is an essay in the unity between rich and poor in the early ecclesia.

16:10 Paul writes to them as if there was one church in Rome, and yet he mentions the house groups

of Aristobulus and Narcissus (Rom. 16:10,11). Indeed, in Rom. 16:14,15 we have lists of names of

brethren, and then the comment ―and all the saints which are with them‖. It could be that the long

list of greetings to named individuals was more like a list of greetings to the various house churches

which comprised the larger ‗ecclesia‘ in Rome. Robert Banks observes: ―Justin in his First Apology

refers to several distinct house-based meetings in Rome as much as a century after the New

Testament‖.

16:13- see on Mt. 27:32; Rom. 16:23.

16:16- see on Acts 2:46.

There is repetition of the command to all ecclesial members to greet all the other members with a

"holy kiss" (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Pet. 5:14). It's hard to translate into our terms

the huge meaning of this in the first century world. It would've been unthinkable for a slave to take

such initiative to kiss their master, or indeed any free person. This practice of all kissing everyone

else in the congregation would've been arresting and startling. Sociologically, it stood no chance of

ever being done. And yet these social and inter-personal miracles were what made Christianity stand

out so noticeably- and in essence, our overcoming of social and inter-personal barriers ought to do

243

the same for our community in the present world. But does it? Are we so markedly different from

others... ? Is our love and unity of such an evidently deep and different quality?

16:17 Those who cause divisions cause ―occasions of stumbling‖ (RV) and should therefore be

avoided- because, the implication is, division causes stumbling. It‘s as simple as that. People

stumble, in Paul‘s experience, because of divisive people within the ecclesias.

There are different levels of being out of fellowship with other believers. Any analysis of the NT

teaching about ecclesial discipline will make this clear. Some brethren should be simply avoided,

kept away from, not necessarily because they themselves are teaching any false doctrine (Rom.

16:17 Gk.). More seriously, 2 Thess. 3:15 speaks of some cases where we should not count a

brother as an "enemy", 'an opposing one', but admonish him as a brother, while separate from him;

whilst Mt. 18:17 describes other cases where the errant brother should be treated as we would a

worldly Gentile (although note: ―Let him be unto thee‖ singular; this is talking about personal

decisions, not ecclesial withdrawal); and, going a stage further, 1 Cor. 5:11 suggests we should not

even keep social company with a brother who is involved in sexual perversion. These different

levels of being 'out of fellowship' can be applied to the different level of separation there may be in

practice between us and a false teacher, and those who perhaps in a misguided view of 'love' still

tolerate him in fellowship. Even if we insist that Mt. 18:7 should be applied to someone, it must be

noted that the Lord‘s attitude to tax collectors and Gentiles was to mix with them, even share table

fellowship with them, with a burning desire to win them for His cause (Mt. 9:9; 10:3; 11:19; 28:19).

It is no accident that all these passages in Matthew have some reference to Matthew the tax collector

being called and saved by the Lord. Matthew is effectively saying under inspiration that we should

treat the person we decide to relate to as a tax collector and Gentile just as he had been treated by

the Lord‘s saving, calling grace.

16:18 Those who make divisions don't serve "our Lord Christ" (Rom. 16:17,18 RV); if they saw

Christ's Lordship, they wouldn't be divisive, but be humbled into loving co-operation with His

brethren.

16:20

Jewish Opposition As Satan

The Jewish system ceased to be a serious adversary or Satan to the Christians in the aftermath of its

destruction in A.D. 70, as Paul prophesied: ―The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet

shortly‖ (Rom. 16:20). A closer study of the context reveals more precisely the mentality of the

Judaizer Satan. Satan being bruised underfoot alludes back to the seed of the serpent being bruised

in Genesis 3:15. The Jews are therefore likened to the Satan-serpent in Genesis (as they are in Jn.

8:44), in their causing ―divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned‖

(Rom. 16:17). Other details in Romans 16 now fall into the Genesis 3:15 context: ―they that are

such serve... their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple‖

(:18). The fair speeches of the Judaizers were like those of the serpent. Instead of ‗Why not eat the

fruit?‘ it was ‗Why not keep the law?‘. Is. 24:6 had earlier made the point that because of the sin of

the priesthood ―therefore hath the curse devoured the earth / land‖; ―their poison is like the poison

of a serpent‖ (Ps. 59:4).

The tree of knowledge thus comes to represent the Law – because ―by the law is the knowledge of

sin‖ (Rom. 3:20). The fig leaves which Adam and Eve covered themselves with also represented the

Law, seeing they were replaced by the slain lamb. Their initially glossy appearance typifies well the

apparent covering of sin by the Law, which faded in time. The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. It seems

reasonable to speculate that having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they made their aprons

out of its leaves, thus making the tree of knowledge a fig tree. Both the tree and the leaves thus

represent the Law and Jewish system; it is therefore fitting if the leaves were from the same tree. It

is also noteworthy that when Christ described the Pharisees as appearing ―beautiful‖ outwardly, he

244

used a word which in the Septuagint was used concerning the tree of knowledge, as if they were

somehow connected with it (Mt. 23:27).

It was as if the Judaizers were saying: ‗Yea, hath God said you cannot keep the law? Why then has

He put it there? It will do you good, it will give you greater spiritual knowledge‘. Colossians 2:3–4

shows this kind of reasoning was going on: ―In (Christ) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and

knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words‖. Here is another

allusion to the serpent. Because all spiritual knowledge is in Christ, Paul says, don‘t be beguiled by

offers of deeper knowledge. Thus Adam and Eve‘s relationship with God in Eden which the serpent

envied and broke is parallel to us being ―in Christ‖ with all the spiritual knowledge that is there.

Hence Paul warned Corinth: ―I fear, lest... as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your

minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ‖ (2 Cor. 11:3). The ‗simplicity in

Christ‘ was therefore the same as man‘s relationship with God in Eden. So again we see the Judaist

false teachers equated with the Satan-serpent of Genesis. Titus 1:10 and 2 Peter 2:1 – 3 specifically

define these men who used an abundance of words and sophistry as ―they of the circumcision‖, i.e.

Jewish false teachers. Those in 2 Peter 2 are described as speaking evil of Angels (:12 cp. Jude 8) –

in the same way as the serpent spoke evil of the Angelic commands given in Eden. It‘s been pointed

out that there‘s an Aramaic pun which connects the serpent [hewya] with the idea of instruction

[hawa] and also Eve, the false teacher of Adam [Hawah].

Back in Romans 16, the Judaizer Satans/ adversaries are spoken of as serving ―their own belly‖

(:18) like the serpent did. Maybe the serpent liked the look of the fruit and wanted to justify his own

eating of it; to do this he persuaded Eve to eat it. Because he served his belly, he had to crawl on it.

Similarly the Judaizers wanted to be justified in their own keeping of the Law, and therefore

persuaded Eve, the Christian bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:1–3), to do the same. ―Yet I would have you

wise unto that which is good, and simple (AV mg. ―harmless‖) concerning evil‖ (Rom. 16:19) – ―be

wise as serpents, (primarily referring to the Pharisees?) and harmless as doves‖, Jesus had said (Mt.

10:16).

16:23 - see on Lk. 8:3. The list of believers‘ names in Romans 16 is there for a purpose: to show

how all types had come together in the Rome ecclesia. Women are named and greeted [uncommon

in contemporary Jewish letters of the time]; some names are common slave names: Phlegon,

Hermes, Philologus; whereas tradition has it that the Narcissus mentioned was a famous and

wealthy member of the court of Claudius. Greetings are given from two members at Corinth:

―Erastus the treasurer of the city [of Corinth] salutes you, and Quartus, a brother‖ (Rom. 16:23).

There is an intended juxtaposition here: of the wealthy and powerful brother Erastus, and the

unknown [slave?] Quartus, who all the same was ―a brother‖, on the same spiritual standing. Phoebe

is described as the prostates of the Cenchrae ecclesia and Paul himself- a word translatable as

―patroness‖ (Rom. 16:1,2). It could be that she funded Paul‘s activities at least in part. The same

implication may be behind Paul‘s description of the mother of Rufus as being his ―mother‖ (Rom.

16:13). This would have continued the example of wealthy women like Joanna supporting the

ministry of Jesus (Lk. 8:2). If one goes through the Acts and the New Testament letters and makes

a list of all the individuals who are named, we have a list of about 78 people. About 30 of these

people have some indication in the narrative as to their social status; and the majority of these are

from above average social stations. For example, the way Achaicus, Fortunatus, Tertius and Lucius

in Corinth and Clement in Philippi all have Latin names in Roman colonies could well indicate that

they were from the original stock of colonists, who tended to be well ahead of the local population.

Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (Rom. 16:23). The social mix

amongst believers must have been startling. Excavations at Ostia near Rome have revealed how the

spacious homes of the wealthy stood right next to the insulae, the blocks of squalid flats in which

the poor lived. There was little differentiation of rich and poor according to which neighbourhoods

245

they lived in. So when we read that the wealthy believer Gaius was ‗host of the whole church‘

(Rom. 16:23), we are to imagine this wealthy man opening his spacious home to the urchins who

lived in the neighbouring blocks who had come to Christ. This must have been startling for the

surrounding populace. Such was the witness of true Christian unity.

246

1 CORINTHIANS

Paul and Corinth

In the letters to Corinth we really come to learn something of the mind of Paul; and he asked us to

follow him, so that we might follow our Lord the more closely. So we want to analyze the

relationship between Paul and Corinth in some detail; for we are all in desperate need of learning

how to relate to each other better.

Firstly, let's firmly place in our minds the supreme spirituality of Paul. He saw visions which were

unlawful to be uttered, he could look back on a string of ecclesias worldwide which were a result of

his work, his writings show that he reached higher into the mysteries of God than most other man

have ever gone. Naturally speaking, it must have been so difficult for him to relate to immature or

unspiritual brethren and sisters! And yet his sense of identity with his spiritual children comes

through all the time. Note how he purposefully mixes his pronouns: ―We know in part… I know in

part… we see in a mirror… I spoke as a child‖ (1 Cor. 13).

Now consider Corinth. Getting drunk at the breaking of bread, some members openly committing

incest and other sexual perversions; and being justified by much of the ecclesia. Some had not the

knowledge of God (1 Cor.15:34). The basic truth of Christ's resurrection and the second coming

were denied, and Paul was slandered unbelievably. There is fair emphasis on Corinth's willing belief

of the vicious denigration of Paul's character, made by some of their elders (1 Cor.2:16; 3:10; 4:11-

14; 9:20-27; 14:18). The depths to which that ecclesia sunk are hard to plumb. And yet Paul

believed that they abounded in love for him; he asks them to abound in their generosity to others as

they abounded in their love for him (2 Cor. 12:7). Truly Paul reflected his own experience of having

righteousness imputed to him.

So the relationship between Paul and Corinth is fascinating, but above all it's instructive of not only

how we should relate to each other, but how Christ relates to us. There is a strange paradox

throughout the letters to Corinth. Paul uses the most exalted and positive language about them,

enthusing about the certainty of their salvation, and yet he also accuses them of the most incredible

spiritual weaknesses. There's a clear example in the chapter we've just read. In 1 Cor.1:8,9, we read

of Paul enthusiastically saying that God would "confirm you (note that) unto the end, that ye may be

blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus". But then in v.12 he accuses every one of them of being

guilty of factionism and division: "Every one of you (the same 'you' of v.8,9) saith, I am of

Paul...(etc.)". Paul really believed what he says in v.4: " I thank my God always on your behalf

(implying: 'You ought to be thanking Him, but I'm doing it for you'?), for the grace of God which is

given you...". This was the secret of how Paul managed to relate to them so positively; He deeply

believed that they were in receipt of God's grace on account of their being in Christ.

The Love Of Paul

So let's just review the positive way in which Paul felt towards his Corinthian brethren. His love for

them was "in (his) heart, known and read of all men" (2 Cor.3:2). He boasted to others of their

"zeal" to give money to the poor, even though it seems they had just made empty promises (2 Cor.

9:2). And in 2 Cor. 9:13 he goes even further; he speaks as if they had already distributed money to

other churches. He saw them as righteous, even though they hadn't performed the acts they vaguely

spoke of. Paul was surely reflecting the spirit of the Father and Son here. It may even be that Paul

mentioned his devotion to Corinth in his 'front-line' presentation of the Gospel to others: "We

preach... Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor.4:5). His great

wish was their "perfection" (2 Cor. 13:9). Paul's deep-seated love for Corinth was absolutely evident

to all who knew them; it was not an act of the will, which occurred just within Paul's mind. So often

our 'love' for difficult members of the ecclesia is no more than a grimly made act of the will. Even

in the midst of rebuking them, Paul uses the language of real endearment: "Wherefore, my dearly

beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor.10:14). The word "brethren" occurs as a refrain throughout the

247

letters; it appears 19 times in the first letter alone, compared with 9 times in the letter to the Romans

(a longer epistle). This is similar to the way in which Jeremiah repeatedly describes the Israel who

rejected and betrayed him as ―my people‖ (e.g. Jer. 8:11,19,21,22). Despite all the cruel allegations

made by them against Paul, he did not deal with them in the cagey, 'political' manner so common in

our circles: "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged" (2 Cor. 6:11). It is

noteworthy that Paul is here alluding to Ps. 119:32, which speaks of God's word enlarging a man's

heart. It was through his application to the word that Paul came to this large-hearted attitude. A

smaller man than Paul would have trod mighty carefully with Corinth, making no more than

succinct, measured statements. But his deep love for them led Paul to be as open-hearted as can be.

Indeed, his pouring forth of his innermost soul to them in the autobiographical sections of 2 Cor. is

evidence of how his heart and mouth were truly opened and enlarged unto them. There was no

shrugging if the shoulders within Paul at the spiritual plight of Corinth: "Ye are in our hearts, to die

and live with you" (2 Cor. 7:3). And it was this basic love which was in Paul‘s heart which led him

to a wonderful spirit of hopefulness; so that even towards the end of his second letter he can speak

of his ―hope, that as your faith groweth, we shall be magnified in you‖ (2 Cor. 10:15 RV).

Corinth's Response

This love of Paul found at least some response from Corinth. Titus told Paul of their feelings for

him: "He told us your earnest desire (for Paul), your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so

that I rejoiced the more" (2 Cor.7:7). Here they were, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and Gentiles of the

Gentiles; in a state of spiritual love with each other. The strange paradox of Paul's great love for

them, yet also his repugnance at their evil ways, is perhaps explicable in terms of their spiritual 'in-

loveness'. As a spiritual sister (cp. Abigail?) can marry an alcoholic (Nabal?) because she sees the

good side in him, whilst not turning a blind eye to his drinking; as a father ever loves wayward

children; so Paul felt towards his beloved sons, his attractive young bride (2 Cor.11:2) of Corinth.

That there was at least some love for Paul by Corinth is made tragically evident from 2 Cor. 12:15:

"The more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved". This is surely the language of falling out of

love. And Paul was the aggrieved party. As with so many a father and young husband, Paul had to

go through the pain of sensing that the object of his love was keeping him at arm's length, was being

partial in their response to the great love he was showing: "Ye have acknowledged us (our love) in

part, that we are your rejoicing" (2 Cor.1:14). Yet Paul took great comfort from their albeit partial

response: "Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things" (1 Cor.11:2); whilst

struggling on to make them realize the intensity of his feelings towards them: "Out of much

affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears (picture the old boy sobbing as he

moved his quill)... that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you" (2

Cor.2:4). Despite the spiteful way in which they demanded Paul bring letters of recommendation

with him (2 Cor.3:1), Paul jumped at their even partial spiritual response: "Great is my glorying of

you! I am filled with comfort, I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation" because of their

positive spiritual reaction to the visit of Titus (2 Cor.7:4).

Hard Discipline

It is often implied that Paul was perfectly happy to put up with the mess at Corinth, and that

therefore we should not be unduly concerned at the state of our latter day ecclesias. This could just

not be further from the truth. Perhaps the greatest indication of Paul's love for Corinth is seen in his

apparent severity towards them, his desire that they really should abide in Christ. Thus in 1 Cor.4:21

Paul parallels coming to them in love with coming "with a rod". The sarcasm of 1 Cor.4:8-14 (and

many other places), his hard words of 1 Cor.3:1-3, all indicate that he saw Corinth for the apostates

which they were; and responded to this. "If I come again, I will not spare...know ye not your own

selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:2,5). This was more

than the externally strict schoolteacher with a soft heart, more than dad just laying the law down one

evening. What Paul was threatening was radical; it may be that he would have used the power of the

248

Holy Spirit to smite them with literal death. 1 Cor. 11:30 would imply that either Paul or another

apostle had done this to them on a previous visit. "I am jealous over you with Godly jealousy" (2

Cor.11:2) is one of a series of allusions in that chapter to the events of Num.25, where Phinehas was

moved with jealousy to slay those who were "unequally yoked" with the things of Belial (cp. 2

Cor.6:14). Paul had accused his Corinthians of just that; and he was quite willing to play the role of

Phinehas.

"I will bewail many that have sinned... if I come again, I will not spare" (2 Cor.12:21; 13:2) is

actually an allusion to Ez.8:18: "Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the

abominations which they commit here (in the natural and spiritual temple of Yahweh, cp. 2

Cor.6:16)?... therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and

though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them". God's anger with Israel as

expressed at the Babylonian invasion was going to be reflected in Paul's 'coming' to spiritual Israel

in Corinth. Yet for all his high powered allusions, Paul mixed them with the most incredible

expressions of true love and sympathy for Corinth. In this we see the giant spiritual stature of that

man Paul.

No Blind Eye

Paul evidently did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's failures. He spoke of them in one breath as

being spiritually complete, whilst in the next he showed that he was truly aware of their failures.

There's a glaring example of this in 1 Cor. 5:6,7: "A little leaven (which they had in their bad

attitude, and also in the presence of the incestuous brother) leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out

therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened". They had leaven;

otherwise Paul would not have told them to purge it out. But then he tells them that they are

"unleavened". In other words, he saw them as if they were unleavened, but he recognized that they

had the bad leaven among and within them. There's another blatant example of this in 1 Cor.8:1,4,7:

"As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge...(v.4) we know that an

idol is nothing in the world... (v.7) howbeit there is not in every man (in the ecclesia) that

knowledge". So Paul starts off by saying that they all knew about the correct attitude to meat offered

to idols. But then he recognizes that in reality, not all of them did know, or at best, they did not

appreciate what they knew. 1 Cor.11:2 has more of the same: "I praise you, brethren, that ye

remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"; but then Paul goes

on to show how they had blatantly disobeyed the ordinance he delivered them concerning the

breaking of bread. Again, Paul sees the Corinthians as if they were perfect, but then goes on to

point out their failures. This is surely a reflection of how the Lord Jesus sees each of us His people.

1 Cor. 3:1,18 shows how the Corinthians thought they were wise, when actually Paul could only

address them as carnal babes in Christ; they were not "wise". Yet in 1 Cor. 10:15 Paul concludes a

section with the words: "I speak as to wise men...". He treated them as if they were wise, when he

knew that they weren't in reality. He begins by rejoicing that ―in every thing ye are enriched by

him…in all knowledge‖ (1 Cor. 1:5), even though this was only potentially true- they had been

given the knowledge, but had failed to turn it into true wisdom. Likewise Paul spells it out to them

that their behaviour was likely to exclude them from the Kingdom; but in the same context he

speaks as if it is taken as red that they will be in the Kingdom: "The saints shall judge the world.

And if the world shall be judged by you... we shall judge Angels" (1 Cor. 6:2,3,9).

It is so significant that Paul did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's faults. In seeking to be positive,

we so often do this. But we are asked to relate to each other, as Christ does to us. And he certainly

doesn't turn a blind eye to our failures. Yet our problem is that if we don't turn a blind eye, we find it

so hard to relate to our brethren. So what is the secret of being able to look at both the good and bad

sides of our brethren? I suggest the answer is something along these lines:

At baptism, a new man was born inside us, personified in the New Testament as "the man Christ

Jesus‖, "the Spirit", etc. Yet there is still the devil within us, a personification of our sinfulness. We

249

identify our real selves as our spiritual man (note how Paul refers to that side of him as "I myself"

in Rom. 7:25). God looks upon us as if we are Christ Jesus, He sees us as justified in Him, He sees

us as if we are as perfect as Christ; not that we are in ourselves, of course. This is how He wants us

to view our brethren; if we see them as God sees us, we will see them as the spiritual man which

they have within them. Yet like God, we will not turn a blind eye to their weaknesses. Paul looked

ahead to the day when God would have confirmed Corinth "unto the end, that ye may be blameless

in the day of our Lord Jesus" (1 Cor.1:8). We too need to try to live the Kingdom life now; we must

live as if we are in the day of Christ's Kingdom (Rom.13:12,13). So in some ways we must see our

brethren as they will be in the Kingdom. Thus in 2 Cor.10:6,15 Paul speaks about the day when

Corinth's "obedience is fulfilled... when your faith is increased... we shall be enlarged by you...

abundantly". "We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus. And in

this confidence I was minded to come unto you..." (2 Cor.1:14). Paul's confidence in them was on

account of the rejoicing he looked forward to having concerning them at the day of judgment. Some

of his final words to them totally summarize his attitude: "This also we wish, even your perfection"

(2 Cor.13:9). He looked earnestly towards the day when they would be spiritually matured. We too

must recognize that we are all only children. We must look to what both we and our brethren will be

one day, in spiritual terms. This certainly takes some spiritual vision. Yet Paul had just this:

...having hope, when [not ‗if‘] your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you‖ (2 Cor.

10:15). He here recognizes that their faith is now weak, and must increase; but he also had written

that they were to remain standing in the faith (1 Cor. 16:13). They were weak in faith; this he

recognized. But he recognized their status as being ‗in the faith‘. So concerned was he with them

that he says that if they were obedient to what he had asked them, then he would be ready to

―revenge all disobedience‖ (2 Cor. 10:6). It‘s as if he was taking them one step at a time in bringing

them to realize their errors; like the Lord, he spoke the word to men as they were able to hear it, not

as he was able to expound it or expose their failures. We are seeking the salvation and betterment of

our brethren, not simply to air our perceptions of their inadequacies.

Corinth: Washed And Sanctified

He saw Corinth as truly saved in prospect, by reason of their being in Christ. He quotes the words of

Lev. 26:13 ―I will dwell in them and walk in them... and they shall be my God‖ about Corinth (2

Cor. 6:16)- even though those words were said to be describing a status conditional upon Israel‘s

obedience. "He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us

(not 'hopefully, if you get your act together!') with you" (2 Cor.4:14) sounds as if Paul fully

expected the Corinthians to be there, and to be joined at the right hand side of the judgment seat by

himself and Titus. 1 Cor.15:51 has the same certainty of their acceptance: "We shall be changed".

"We (Paul and Corinth) know... we have a building of God... eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor.5:1), i.e.

the spiritual man Christ Jesus within each man who is in Christ. Truly could Paul write: "Our hope

of you is steadfast, knowing that, as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so should ye be also of the

consolation" (2 Cor.1:7). They, woolly Corinth, would judge the world in the Millennium (1 Cor.

6:2). "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy

Spirit, be with you all " (2 Cor.13:14) must have taken some writing, even under inspiration. "Be

with you all "would have included those Judaist-influenced brethren hell-bent on destroying Paul's

work and image, those who had sinned grievously, and those whose doctrinal appreciation was

starting to slip. Yet this was how Paul saw them; as being in Christ, and abiding in the love of God

and fellowship of the Holy Spirit; thanks to their baptism into Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and

abiding (at least for that present time) in that blessed relationship. 2 Cor.11:2 even shows Paul

likening Corinth ecclesia to the guileless Eve in Eden, not yet having sinned, all innocence and

uncorrupted beauty. And yet he saw himself as the Eve who had been deceived and punished by

death (Rom. 7:11,13 = Gen. 2:17; 3:13); but he saw them as the Even who had not yet sinned. This

was no literary trick of the tail; he genuinely felt and saw them as better than himself to be- such

was the depth of his appreciation of his own failures. Paul saw Corinth as abounding in knowledge

250

and love (2 Cor. 8:7), even though they had some who lacked the basic knowledge of God (1 Cor.

15:34), and they needed exhortation to confirm their love to the disfellowshipped brother (2 Cor.

2:6-8). Likewise, unfaithful Israel is still addressed as "the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible

thing" (Jer. 18:13); she was seen as a virgin right up until the Babylonian invasion, where she was

as it were ‗raped‘ (Jer. 14:17 Heb.). We reflect the same paradox in our efforts to see evidently

weak brethren as still sanctified in Christ.

Having spoken of fornicators, idolaters, thieves etc., all of whom were found within the Corinth

ecclesia, Paul says: "But such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are

justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (1 Cor.6:11). The reference to

washing, and the Father, Son and Spirit all points back to baptism for the remission of sins (Mt.

28:19). The fact those people had been baptized meant so much to Paul. The significance of our

brethren's baptisms should also make a deep impact on ourselves. By this act they became "in

Christ". The Corinthians were committing idolatry, fornication etc. Paul was aware of that. But he

was prepared to see them as being sanctified in Christ; he counted them as if this was not

happening: for the time being. There was coming a time when he would no longer accept that they

were in Christ, and when he would not spare them in any way (2 Cor.13:2). The repented of failures

of our brethren, however severe they may seem to us, must be overlooked if there is real evidence

that they are making effort to abide in Christ. Unrepentant fornication or idolatry is hardly proof of

this. "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor.5:20) indicates that Paul did

not see them as reconciled to God; yet he looked at the man Christ Jesus within them in order to be

able to have all the positive feelings towards them which he did. So clear was Paul's vision of their

spiritual man that he could actually boast about their 'good side' to other ecclesias (2 Cor. 7:4,14;

9:2). So enthusiastic was Paul about the great grace of God which Corinth basked in, that he

actually made other ecclesias truly affectionate of Corinth: "which long after you for the exceeding

grace (Paul knew just how exceeding it was to Corinth!) in you" (2 Cor.9:14).

And Paul showed this same spirit in all his dealings with his brethren. He could say in all honesty

that ―I am convinced, my brothers, that you are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and

competent to instruct one another‖ (Rom. 15:14 NIV)- even though there must have been major

problems in Rome, not least the Jew: Gentile division. He was so positive about them that he could

write that he was sure that Corinth‘s labour was ―not in vain‖ (1 Cor. 15:58)- and yet he knew that

labour was in vain if converts fell away (1 Thess. 3:5). Yet he acted towards them, and genuinely

felt as if, they would not and had not fallen away. This was quite some psychological and spiritual

achievment, given the depths of their apostacy. Corinth hated Paul, slandered him, despised him.

And yet he can write that their love for him "abounded" (2 Cor. 8:7). I take this not as sarcasm, but

as a deep attempt by him to view them positively. We are challenged by Paul‘s example to look at

our brethren the same way.

"As God... hath forgiven"

We are told to forgive one another, "as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph.4:32). All

our sins were forgiven, in prospect, at baptism. All our irritating habits and attitudes, our secret sins,

all these were forgiven then. And we must respond to this by counting our brethren to have received

the same grace. Seeing we have received this grace, why do we find it so hard to see our brethren

like this? Surely the answer rests in the fact that we don't fully believe or appreciate the degree to

which God really does see us personally as being perfect in Christ. Paul was so super-assured of his

own salvation, of the fact that God really did see him as a man in Christ, and therefore he found it

easier to see his brethren in such a positive way. He was so conscious of how his many sins were

just not counted against him. He knew that he was " chief of sinners" , he didn't turn a blind eye to

himself; because he could realistically face up to his own position before God, he found it easier to

do the same for his weak brethren.

251

The fact that Paul saw the spiritual man in all his brethren means that to some degree he saw them

all as equal. He seems to bring this point out in 1 Cor. 4:14,17: "As my beloved sons I warn you

(Corinth ecclesia)... for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son...". Paul

calls both Corinth and Timothy his beloved sons. The implication is that to some degree, he felt the

same towards dodgy Corinth as he did towards the spiritually strong Timothy. Likewise Christ

showed his love for the whole church when he died on the cross. This does not mean, of course, that

Paul did not have deeper bonds with some than with others. But the fact is that in spiritual terms, he

saw all his brethren as equal, in that they shared the same status of being justified in Christ. Whether

one had 2% righteousness and another 5% was irrelevant; they both needed the massive imputation

of God's righteousness through Christ. As Paul could call both Timothy and Corinth his "beloved

sons", so God calls both Christ and ourselves by the same title (Mt.3:17 cp. Col.3:12; 1 Jn.3:2; 2

Thess.2:13) . The reason? Because "he hath made us accepted (by being) in the beloved (son)"

(Eph.1:6).

1:2 1 Cor. 1:2 can be read several ways: ―them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours‖. Paul

could be saying that Jesus Christ is Lord both of ‗us‘ and also of all the congregations of believers.

But he could also mean (and the Greek rather suggests this) that the same Jesus understood and

interpreted somewhat differently amongst the various believers “in every place” was in fact Lord of

them all. For your interpretation of the Lord Jesus and mine will inevitably differ in some points.

Now this must of course be balanced against John‘s clear teaching that those who deny Jesus came

in the flesh are in fact antiChrist.

1:2 The Jerusalem pattern of gathering collectively in the temple and yet also having home groups

was repeated in Corinth. 1 Corinthians is addressed to the singular church in Corinth, which he

parallels with ―all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus‖ (1 Cor. 1:2). Those ‗places‘, I

submit, referred to the various house churches in the city. He specifically mentions the house

churches of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11) and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15). The exhortation that ―you all

speak the same thing‖ (1 Cor. 1:10) would then refer to the need for the various house churches to

all ―be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment‖. As we know, there

was an issue of fellowship in Corinth, concerning a deeply immoral brother. If he avoided church

discipline by simply joining another house church, they were not going to be joined together in ―the

same judgment‖, and inevitably division would arise amongst those Corinthian house churches.

There was to be peace rather than confusion ―in all churches‖ (1 Cor. 14:33)- i.e. all the house

churches in Corinth. Paul‘s complaint that ―every one of you saith, I am of Paul… I of Apollos‖ (1

Cor. 1:12) surely makes more sense if read with reference to each of the house churches, rather than

every individual member. Paul speaks there as if the believers ‗came together‘ ‗in ekklesia‘ (1 Cor.

5:4), i.e. the various home groups occasionally met together. Hence he speaks of when ―the whole

church be come together into one place‖ (1 Cor. 14:23), i.e. all the house churches gathered together

for a special fellowship meeting. He says that when they ‗came together‘, then they should make a

collective decision about disfellowshipping the immoral brother. Paul wrote to the Romans from

Corinth, and he describes Gaius as the host of the whole church (Rom. 16:23)- implying that he had

premises large enough for all the various house churches to gather together in. The abuses which

occurred when the whole church ‗came together‘ presumably therefore occurred on his premises.

1:8- see on Gal. 6:4.

1:10- see on 1 Cor. 1:2.

―Be perfectly joined together" (1 Cor. 1:10) uses the same Greek word as in Heb. 10:5, where we

read of the Lord's one body "prepared", joined together.

1:12- see on 1 Cor. 1:2.

252

1 Cor. 3:22 speaks of three groups in the Corinth ecclesia, following Paul, Peter and Apollos. Yet in

1 Cor. 1:12 someone says ―I am of Christ" . This seems to be Paul himself- so Christ-centred was

he, that he wanted no part in ecclesial politics nor in the possibility of leading a faction. His Christ-

centredness was a phenomenal achievement.

Jude, Peter And Corinth

A case can be made that the letters of Peter and Jude were also written to Corinth. Peter visited

Corinth, presumably focusing his preaching on the Jewish community, and perhaps he was writing

his letters specifically to the Jewish house churches there (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5). The same

concerns are apparent as in Paul's letters to Corinth: The need to distinguish between spiritual and

unspiritual persons who despised others (Jude 19 = 1 Cor. 2:6 - 3:4; 8:1-3); those who perverted

liberty into licence (Jude 4 = 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23), becoming slaves of sensuality (Jude 8,10,16,23 =

1 Cor. 6:9-20; 2 Cor. 12:21); some eating and drinking abusively at the love feast (Jude 12 = 1 Cor.

11:17-33); refusing the authority of their elders (Jude 8,11 = 1 Cor. 4:8-13; 9:1-12); both Peter and

Paul warn Corinth of the danger of worldly wisdom. Peter's reminder to them about the authority of

Paul is very understandable in this case. However, the point of all this is to observe the tenderness

of Peter and Jude in writing to the Corinthians ["my beloved..."], whilst at the same time warning

them of the awesome judgment which there behaviour was preparing for them. It was the same

passionate love for Christ's weak brethren which Paul showed them.

1:13 There are times when Paul uses the word "Christ" when we'd have expected him to use the

word "church"- e.g. "Is Christ divided?... as the body is one... so also is Christ" (1 Cor. 1:13; 12:12).

This synecdoche serves to demonstrate the intense unity between Christ and His people- we really

are Him to this world.

Think through the reasoning of 1 Cor. 1:13: ―Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were

ye baptized in the name of Paul?". The fact Jesus was crucified for us means that we should be

baptized into that Name, and also be undivided.

―Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. 1:13) is probably hyperbole (i.e.

grossly exaggerated language to make a point). The command to preach and baptize as given in the

great preaching commission was just one command; preaching-and-baptizing went together. It

seems to me that Paul did baptize; but using the figure of hyperbole, he's saying: 'My emphasis is on

getting on with the work of preaching the Gospel, the fact I've held the shoulders of many men and

women as I pushed them under the water is irrelevant; Christ didn't send me to just do this, but more

importantly to preach the Gospel'. And may this be our attitude too.

Christ being undivided is placed parallel with the fact Paul was not crucified for us, but Christ was

(1 Cor. 1:13). The implication is surely that because Christ was crucified for us, therefore those He

died to redeem are undivided. We have one Saviour, through one salvation act, and therefore we

must be one. The atonement and fellowship are so linked.

Christ is not divided, and therefore, Paul reasons, divisions amongst brethren are a nonsense. Christ

is not divided, and therefore neither should we be (1 Cor. 1:13; 3:3). Let's remember this powerful

logic, in all our thinking about this issue. Paul even goes so far as to suggest that if we do not

discern the body at the breaking of bread, if we wilfully exclude certain members of the body, then

we eat and drink condemnation to ourselves. This is how serious division is. The devil‘s house is

divided (Mt. 12:25,26); Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13 s.w.). We were called to the Gospel so

that we might share in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus Christ- i.e. fellowship with Him and His

Father, and with all the others within His body (1 Cor. 1:9,10). If we accept that brethren and sisters

are validly baptized into and remain within His body, then we simply must fellowship with them.

Should we refuse to do this, we are working against the essential purpose of God- to build up the

body of His Son now, so that we might exist in that state eternally.

253

1:14 Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (Rom. 16:23). Crispus was

the leader of the Corinth synagogue and yet he and Gaius were the first people Paul converted there

(1 Cor. 1:14). Thus in this case the initial response was from the socially well to do, although the

later converts were generally poor. By all means compare with how wealthy Lydia was the first

convert in Philippi. Anyone who was a household leader or with a home large enough to

accommodate the ecclesia was clearly of a higher social level. Thus the Philippian jailer, Stephanas

and Chloe had a ―household‖ (1 Cor. 1:11; 16:15), as did Philemon; and even Aquilla and Priscilla

although artisans were wealthy enough to have room to host an ecclesia (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3-

5). Titus Justus [whose name implies he was a Roman citizen] lad a house adjacent to the

synagogue in Corinth. Mark‘s mother had a home in Jerusalem that could accommodate a meeting

(Acts 12:12); Baranbas owned a farm (Acts 4:36); Jason was wealthy enough to stand bail for Paul

and entertain his visitors (Acts 17:5-9). An Areopagite was converted in Athens (Acts 17:34).

Apollos and Phoebe were able to travel independently. Remember that most people at the time lived

in cramped tiny rooms, so unbearable that most of their lives were lived outdoors as far as possible.

1:17 - see on Mt. 3:8; Gal. 6:14.

Paul had been reconciled, as have all men, by the cross. But he still needed to be converted, and this

depended upon the freewill obedience of the likes of Ananias. It really is so, for Paul warned that

preaching the Gospel with wisdom of words would make ―the cross of Christ... of none effect‖ (1

Cor. 1:17). The effect of the cross, the power of it to save, is limited in its extent by our manner of

preaching of it. And we can make ―Christ‖, i.e. His cross, of ―none effect‖ by trusting to our works

rather than accepting the gracious salvation which He achieved (Gal. 5:4).

Paul declared unto Corinth ―the testimony of God", i.e. ―Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1,2).

This message was ―in demonstration of the Spirit and of power", ―the wisdom of God", ―Christ

crucified" (1 Cor. 1:17,23,24; 2:4,5). Indeed, ―the cross of Christ" is put for ‗the preaching of His

cross‘ (1:17). All these things are parallel. The cross is in itself the testimony and witness of God.

This is why, Paul reasons, the power of the cross itself means that it doesn‘t matter how poorly that

message is presented in human words; indeed, such is its excellence and power that we even

shouldn‟t seek to present it with a layer of human ‗culture‘ and verbiage shrouding it.

Sometimes we need to read into the text the idea of "not so much this, as that". Thus "Christ sent me

not [so much as] to baptize, but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17). Paul of course did baptize

people, as he goes on to say in that very context (1 Cor. 1:14). Or take Jer. 7:22,23: "I spake not

unto your fathers, nor commanded them... concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing

commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God". God did command sacrifices;

but He not so much commanded them as required Israel's spirit of obedience and acceptance of

Him.

1:18- see on Rom. 1:18.

The most serious problem in the Corinth ecclesia, Paul said, was that they were divided (1 Cor. 1:18

Gk; and notice how he begins his letter by addressing this problem, not the incest, the drunkenness

at the breaking of bread, the false doctrine...). See on Gal. 2:2.

Because we are in Christ, therefore we witness Him; and we witness as He witnessed. His witness is

in fact ours. But there is a sober theme in Scripture: that the essential witness of Christ was in His

time of dying. ―The preaching [‗the word‘] of the cross‖ (1 Cor. 1:18) refers to the way in which the

cross itself was and is a witness, rather than speaking of preaching about the cross.

Do we feel ashamed that we just don‘t witness as we ought to? There is no doubt that the cross and

baptism into that death was central to the preaching message of the early brethren. Knowing it,

believing it, meant that it just had to be preached. The completeness and reality of the redemption

achieved is expressed in Hebrews with a sense of finality, and we ought not to let that slip from our

presentation of the Gospel either. There in the cross, the justice and mercy of God are brought

254

together in the ultimate way. There in the cross is the appeal. Paul spoke of ―the preaching of the

cross", the word / message which is the cross (1 Cor. 1:18). Some of the early missionaries reported

how they could never get any response to their message until they explained the cross; and so, with

our true doctrinal understanding of it, it is my belief that the cross is what has the power of

conversion. A man cannot face it and not have a deep impression of the absoluteness of the issues

involved in faith and unbelief, in choosing to accept or reject the work of the struggling, sweating,

gasping Man who hung on the stake. It truly is a question of believe or perish. Baptism into that

death and resurrection is essential for salvation. Of course we must not bully or intimidate people

into faith, but on the other hand, a preaching of the cross cannot help but have something

compulsive and urgent and passionate about it. For we appeal to men on God‘s behalf to accept the

work of the cross as efficacious for them. I submit that much of our preaching somehow fails in

urgency and entreaty. We seem to be in places too expository, or too attractive with the peripherals,

seeking to please men... or be offering good advice, very good advice indeed, background Bible

knowledge, how to read the Bible effectively... all of which may be all well and good, but we should

be preaching good news, not good advice. The message of the cross is of a grace and real salvation

which is almost too good to believe. It isn‘t Bible background or archaeology or Russia invading

Israel. It is the Man who had our nature hanging there perfect, full of love, a light in this dark

world... and as far as we perceive the wonder of it all, as far as this breaks in upon us, so far we will

hold it forth to this world. The Lord wasn‘t preaching good ideas; He was preaching good news.

The cross means that we have a faith to live by all our days; not just a faith to die by, a comfort in

our time of dying, as we face the endgame.

1:19- see on Job 5:12,13.

Paul alludes to some parts of the Gospels more than to others. The record of John the Baptist, the

sermon on the mount, the parables and the record of Christ in Gethsemane are all referred to far

more than average. This surely would not be the case if the connections between Paul's writings and

the Gospels were only the result of the Spirit irresistibly carrying Paul along. We have suggested

that Paul's enthusiasm for the record of John the Baptist was because he had probably first heard the

Gospel from John; i.e. there was a reason personal to Paul as to why he alludes to much to that

particular part of the Gospels. And so with his sustained allusions to Gethsemane, far more than we

would expect statistically. Presumably the picture of the Lord Jesus struggling against His own

nature, driven to the brink of eternal failure, was an image which echoed in Paul's mind. Likewise

the parables were intended to be memorized and meditated upon; Paul did just this, and that's why

he alludes to them more than average. This sort of pattern is just what we too experience; there are

parts of Scripture which stick in our minds, often for personal reasons. And so it was with Paul. Mt.

11:25 was a verse which was perhaps very much in his mind as he wrote to Corinth; it is alluded to

in 1 Cor. 1:19; 2:8; 14:20- and nowhere else.

1:20 Truly Paul despised all worldly advantage and insisted upon the radical principles of the Lord-

that true greatness is in humility, wealth is in poverty, worldly learning is the very opposite of

Divine wisdom, etc. He mocks, even, such things when he writes to the Corinthians: "Where is the

one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?" (1 Cor. 1:20). Every one of

these terms would have been true of Saul the Pharisee, Paul the powerful user of rhetoric, Paul of

the razor sharp mind. And he knew his worldly advantage, and despised it.

1:21 1 Cor. 1:21,25 speak of the Gospel as ―the foolishness of the thing preached‖ (RV) – not that it

is foolish, but it is perceived that way.

1:23 The cross was foolishness to the Gentiles and an offence to the Jews. In Roman thought, the

cross was something shocking; the very word ‗cross‘ was repugnant to them. It was something only

for slaves. Consider the following writings from the period.

255

- Cicero wrote: ―The very word ‗cross‘ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman

citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these

things or the endurance of them, but… the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman

citizen and a free man… your honours [i.e. Roman citizenship] protect a man from… the terror of

the cross‖.

- Seneca the Elder in the Controversiae records where a master‘s daughter marries a slave, and she

is described as having become related to cruciarii, ‗the crucified‘. Thus ‗the crucified‘ was used by

metonymy for slaves. The father of the girl is taunted: ―If you want to find your son-in-law‘s

relatives, go to the cross‖. It is hard for us to appreciate how slaves were seen as less than human in

that society. There was a stigma and revulsion attached to the cross. This was the offence of the

cross.

- Juvenal in his 6th Satire records how a wife ordered her husband: ―Crucify this slave‖. ―But what

crime worthy of death has he committed?‖ asks the husband, ―no delay can be too long when a

man‘s life is at stake‖. She replies: ―What a fool you are! Do you call a slave a man?‖.

The sense of shame and offence attached to the cross was also there in Jewish perception of it.

Whoever was hung on a tree was seen as having been cursed by God (Dt. 21:23). Justin Martyr, in

Dialogue with Trypho, records Trypho (who was a Jew) objecting to Christianity: ―We are aware

that the Christ must suffer…but that he had to be crucified, that he had to die a death of such shame

and dishonour- a death cursed by the Law- prove this to us, for we are totally unable to receive it‖.

Justin Martyr in his Apology further records: ―They say that our madness consists in the fact that we

place a crucified man in second place after the eternal God‖. The Romans also mocked the idea of

following a crucified man. There is a caricature which shows a crucified person with an ass‘s head.

The ass was a symbol of servitude [note how the Lord rode into Jerusalem on an ass]. The caption

sarcastically says: ―Alexamenos worships God‖. This was typical of the offence of the cross.

1:23,24 It has been pointed out that if some NT passages are translated into Aramaic, the common

language of the day in first century Israel, there would have been ample encouragement for

memorization. Thus: We preach Christ crucified (mishkal), unto the Jews a stumblingblock

(mikshol), and unto the Greeks foolishness (sekel), but unto them that are called...the power

(hishkeel) of God and the wisdom (sekel) of God" (1 Cor. 1:23,24).

1:24 Paul saw the cross of Christ as parallel with ―the things of the Spirit of God", the wisdom of

God, what eye has not seen nor ear heard, but what is revealed unto the believer and not to the

world (1 Cor. 1:18,23,24; 2:7-13). The cross of Christ was the supreme expression of the Spirit of

God, and it‘s true meaning is incomprehensible to the world. In the cross, according to Paul‘s

allusion back to Isaiah, God bowed the Heavens and came down. He did wonderful things which we

looked not for. The thick darkness there is to be associated with a theophany presence of God

Himself. See on Jn. 19:19.

1:25 That Almighty all-wise God could inspire 1 Cor. 1:25 is another example of God‘s humility:

―The foolishness of God… the weakness of God‖. In Jer. 14:21 we find something wonderful: ―Do

not abhor us… do not disgrace the throne of thy glory‖. We, weak humans, are paralleled with the

throne of God‘s glory.

1:26-28 The Lord Himself had implied that it was to the poor that the Gospel was more successfully

preached. And Paul observed that in Corinth, not many mighty had been called, but most of them

were poor (1 Cor. 1:26-28). ―Christianity in its beginnings was without doubt a movement of

impoverished classes… the Christian congregation originally embraced proletariat elements almost

exclusively and was a proletarian organization‖. It has also been observed that the New Testament

generally is written in very rough Greek, of a low cultural level when compared with other Greek

literature of the period. The way he exhorts the Thessalonians to work with their own hands so that

256

the world couldn‘t criticize them implies the readership of Thessalonians were mainly manual

workers (1 Thess. 4:11). Likewise Eph. 4:28. Paul wrote as if the ―abysmal poverty‖ of the

Macedonian ecclesias was well known (2 Cor. 8:1,2); and yet he goes on to reason that they had

―abundance‖ in comparison with the ―lack‖ of the Jerusalem Christians (8:14). The Jewish

Christians called themselves ―Ebionites‖, based on the Hebrew word for ‗the poor‘- ―it was

probably a conscious reminiscence of a very early term which attested by Paul‘s letters as an almost

technical name for the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea‖. Even if not all these poor converts were

slaves, they were all subservient to their employers / sources of income. Craftsmen would have had

to belong to a pagan trade guild, normally involving idol worship which a Christian had to refuse,

and slaves of course had no ‗right‘ to their own religion if it differed from that of their household.

1:28 Base things- Gk. a-genes, ‗without family‘. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, family was

everything, it was by this that you were defined, rather than you having much meaning by yourself.

To be without family meant you were absolutely nothing. And yet this is the kind of person God

choses to create a new family in Christ. This was how the Lord Jesus would‘ve been considered- a-

genes, without family, seeing that His mother would‘ve insisted that He wasn‘t really the son of

Joseph, and claimed that Jesus was the son of no man, therefore from no family.

Despised- The same Greek word is used about the despising of Christ on the cross (Lk. 23:11; Acts

4:11). It was Christ who was the supremely ‗chosen one‘. Note that the Corinthians ‗despised‘ Paul

(s.w. 2 Cor. 10:10). Paul obviously knew this, and he may be alluding to their attitude to him in

order to prove his legitimacy.

2:1- see on Jn. 1:14.

2:2 Among you- Gk. ‗in you‘. The implication is that Paul tried to know the Christ person within the

otherwise aggressive Corinthians, he saw them for their status in Christ. He tried to perceive the

Christ in these weak brethren. Hence ―we have the mind of Christ‖ (2:16).

The letters to Corinth must have been very difficult to write. Paul was walking an absolute

minefield. Therefore he says that his attitude to Corinth was that he wanted to know nothing among

them, saving Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2); he wanted to keep his mind fixed upon the

Lord Jesus and the intensity of His passion, rather than get sidetracked by personality issues and

ecclesial politics. And his letters reveal this. They contain many unconscious allusions to the

suffering and death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ as "Lord" throughout all his letters about once

every 26 verses on average. And yet in Corinthians he does so once every 10 verses on average. The

Lordship and suffering of Jesus were therefore very much in Paul's mind as he wrote. His Christ and

cross-centred perspective is a real example to us, living as we do at a time when the body of Christ

increasingly distracts us from the central object of our devotion: the Son of God who died for us,

and was raised again for our justification.

When Paul faced Corinth, the ecclesia whom he had loved and brought into being with great labour

pains, yet now riven with carnality, fabricating the most malicious rumours against him, bitter at his

spirituality... he determined to know nothing among them, saving Christ, and Him crucified (1 Cor.

2:2). The antidote to ecclesial problems and selfishness is reflection upon the cross. By insisting on

our rights, Paul says, we will make the weak brother stumble, "for whom Christ died". 'Think of His

cross and sacrifice', Paul is saying, 'and the sacrifice of self restraint you are asked to make is

nothing at all'.

Despite ―the offence of the cross", Paul preached it. ―I determined not to know [an idiom for ‗teach

the knowledge of] any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). Paul

didn‘t accommodate his message to the ears of his hearers. There are times when God‘s revelation is

accommodated to us, but not when it comes to the basic message of Christ and the demands which

His cross makes upon us.

2:3 - see on 1 Cor. 8:9; 2 Cor. 12:7.

257

Paul explains his own attitude to preaching in 1 Cor. 2:3: ―I was with you in weakness, and in fear,

and in much trembling‖. It could be that this is a reference to his physical weakness at the time he

preached to the Corinthians. But William Barclay understands the Greek words to more imply ―the

trembling anxiety to perform a duty‖, and I tend to run with this. The words are a reflection of the

heart that bled within Paul. The man who has no fear, no hesitancy, no nervousness, no tension in

the task of preaching…may give an efficient and competent performance from a platform. But it is

the man who has this trembling anxiety, that intensity which comes from a heart that bleeds for ones

hearers, who will produce an effect which artistry alone can never achieve. He is the man who will

convert another. It has truly been said that ―the need is the call‖. To perceive the needs of others is

what calls us and compels us to witness, coupled with our own disappointment with ourselves, our

race, our nature.

For Paul, his glory was not in heroic "deeds of the body" [see on Gal. 1:10] but rather in the fact that

when he first preached to the Corinthians, he was suffering from "weakness... much fear and

trembling" (1 Cor. 2:3)- a reference to anything from agitated nervous breakdown to malaria. We

have Gal. 4:13 in the same vein: "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the

gospel to you at the first".

2:3-5- see on Jn. 15:26.

2:4 The Corinthians were converted ―not [so much] through words of wisdom, but through the

demonstration of the spirit‖ (1 Cor. 2:4). The essence of all this is the same today as it was then- the

revelation of the person of Jesus isn‘t solely through Bible reading and getting the interpretation

right; it‘s through a living community, His body. It is there that we will see His Spirit / personality

in action. I don‘t refer to miraculous gifts- but to the spirit / mind / disposition / essence of the Lord,

man and saviour Jesus.

2:6-9 1 Cor. 2:6-9 stresses how they possessed a truth which nobody else apart from them could

know. Whilst this feature of true Christianity led into the arrogance and pride which eventually

doomed the early church, when and whilst used properly, it bound them even closer together.

Nikolaus Walter observes that the first century generally ―did not experience religion as a binding

force that was capable of determining everyday reality by offering support, setting norms, and

forming community‖. And yet the Truth enabled just such things to occur. In this, as today, the

example of the community is the ultimate proof that the doctrines we teach are indeed the Truth and

of themselves demand conversion.

2:8- see on 1 Cor. 1:19.

2:9 The things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has

not seen but which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than

the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because Mt. 13:11; 16:17 = 1 Cor. 2:9,10). The

context of 1 Cor. 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation.

2:9,10 The true believers are those in whom God is revealed in a limited sense in this life. However,

in the Kingdom, they will be ‗mighty ones‘ in whom the LORD will be fully manifested. This is all

beautifully shown by a comparison of Is. 64:4 and 1 Cor. 2:9. ―Men have not heard, nor perceived

by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides you, what He has prepared for him that waits

for him‖. Paul quotes this in 1 Cor. 2:9,10: ―It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has

entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him. But God

has revealed them unto us by His Spirit‖. The passage in Is. 64 says that no one except God can

understand the things He has prepared for the believers. However 1 Cor. 2:10 says that those things

have been revealed to us.

2:10 The intense degree to which God's Name really is called upon us is brought out in Is. 64:4.

There we are told that no man has perceived "O God, beside Thee" what has been prepared for the

saints. These words are quoted in 1 Cor. 2:9,10 concerning us, with the wondrous statement that

258

God has revealed these things to us by His Spirit. Yet Is. 64:4 says that only God alone knows these

things. But Paul says that they are also known by us, through God's Spirit. So through our

association with the one Spirit, the one Name of Yahweh, what is true of God Himself on a personal

level becomes true of us. Such is the wonder of the way in which His fullness dwells in us. God's

Name alone is Yahweh (Ps. 83:18), yet this Name is now called upon us.

2:14 The things of the spirit of God are spiritually ―discerned‖ says Paul in 1 Cor. 2:14. But the

Greek word means literally to question; asking questions as we read God‘s word is therefore an

appropriate thing for us to be doing.

2:15- see on 1 Cor. 4:4; Rev. 2:17.

In the final analysis, we will meet Jesus alone. There will by God‘s grace be a moment when we

will even see the face of Almighty God- alone. This was the light at the end of Job‘s tunnel- he

would see his redeemer for himself ―and not another‖. Paul possibly expresses the same idea of an

unenterable relationship in 1 Cor. 2:15: "He that is spiritual discerneth all things (about God), yet he

himself is discerned of no man". Our real spiritual being is a "hidden man" (1 Pet. 3:4). The Spirit

describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved" ; our innermost being, our

essential spiritual personality, who we really are in spiritual terms, will as it were be immortalized

(1 Pet. 1:9; 1 Cor. 5:5).

Notice that Paul styles the spiritual man "he himself" (1 Cor. 2:15); as if the real, fundamental self

of the true believer is the spiritual man, notwithstanding the existence of the man of the flesh within

him. Likewise Paul calls his spiritual man "I myself" in Rom. 7:25. He now felt that when he

sinned, it was no longer ―I", his real, personal self, who was doing so (Rom. 7:17).

2:16 - see on Job 21:22.

3:1 We perhaps tend to assume that "the Holy Spirit" refers to miraculous gifts far more often than it

does. The Corinthians possessed the gifts, but were in a more fundamental sense Spirit-less (1 Cor.

3:1). ―John did no miracle‖, but was filled with the Spirit from his birth. Even the Comforter, which

does refer to the miraculous gifts in its primary context, was, in perhaps another sense, to be unseen

by the world, and to be within the believers (Jn. 14:17). It could well be that the Lord‘s discourse

with Nicodemus concerning the need to be born both of water and Spirit must be read in the context

of John‘s baptism; his was a birth of water, but Christian baptism is being described with an almost

technical term: birth of the Spirit, in that baptism into the Spirit of Jesus brings the believer into the

realm of the operation of God‘s Spirit. Consider the following selection of passages:

3:2 ―I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food‖ (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb.

5:12-14) surely alludes to Jn. 16:12, although it doesn‘t verbally quote it: ―I still have many things

to say to you, but you cannot bear them now‖.

3:5 We're all preachers; it's not something that can be delegated to just some brethren. Paul reasons

that as he and Apollos were ordained as ministers of the Gospel, so the Lord had also in principle

given such a ministry "to every man" (1 Cor. 3:5).

3:6 Paul explains how that in his preaching he laid the foundation of the Gospel of Christ, but other

brethren were building on it, as in his earlier parable he spoke of his planting the seed of the Gospel

and Apollos watering it. He warned these 'builder' brethren to "take heed how he buildeth

thereupon", because "every man's work (cp. "ye are my work in the Lord", 1 Cor. 9:1) shall be made

manifest: for the day (of judgment) shall declare it... the fire [of judgment] shall try every man's

work, of what sort it is... gold, silver... wood, hay, stubble... if any man's work abide which he hath

built... he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he

himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:6-15). This clearly teaches that successful

building up of brethren will have its specific reward at the judgment; and that to some degree their

rejection will be a result of our lack of zeal, and we will thus lose the extra reward which we could

259

have had for the work of upbuilding. No doubt if the brethren we have laboured hard with to help,

are with us in the Kingdom, this will greatly increase our joy- as compared to the brother who has

not had such intense fellowship with his brethren during this life, and whose close friends in the

ecclesia have been rejected, he himself only barely passing through the fire of judgment himself

("Yet so as by fire").

3:9- see on Rom. 15:26.

We are co-workers with Him in the building up of His house (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1). He could save

men directly; but instead He has delegated that work to us, and thereby limited His power to save

insofar as it depends upon our extension of it. Only through our preaching can the work of the cross

be made complete- and that thought is frightening. God is building up His house, His ecclesia. But

because we manifest God, we too are "labourers together with Him", not just puppets in His hand;

we too are the builders of His house (1 Cor. 3:9-13; 2 Cor. 6:1).

3:10 Paul‘s reasoning in 1 Cor. 3:10-12 is likewise that ―every man‖ will make a convert, and he

should ensure they are firm in the faith, lest he lose them at judgement day. These assumptions of

Paul reflect his positive way of thought, in a brotherhood that abounded in weakness and failure to

live up to its potential. Likewise he writes of marriage as if marriage within the faith was and is the

only model of marriage which he knows, even though there must have been many failures to live up

to this ideal, as there are today.

3:10-15 Paul seems to have assumed that all of us would preach and make converts (not leave it to

just some of our community): he speaks of how "every man" in the ecclesia builds upon the

foundation of Christ, but how he builds will be judged by fire. If what he has built is burnt up at the

judgment, he himself will be saved, but not what he has built (1 Cor. 3:10-15). I would suggest that

the 'building' refers to our converts and work with other believers. If they fail of the Kingdom, we

ourselves will be saved, but our work will have been in vain. This parable also suggests that the

salvation of others, their passing through the fire at the judgment, is dependent upon how we build.

This may be hyperbole to make a point, but it is a powerful encouragement that we are all elders

and preachers, and we all have a deep effect on others' spirituality. We have responsibilities to those

who respond to our preaching.

3:12-15- see on Josh. 6:24.

3:13 At the point of conversion, the secrets of our hearts are in a sense made manifest (1 Cor.

14:25); but secrets are made manifest in the last day (Mt. 6:4,6,18; 1 Cor. 3:13). The present

judgments of God about us will be revealed at the judgment (Rom. 2:5). Our actions "treasure up"

wrath or acceptance (Rom. 2:5). The materialistic believer heaps up treasure for judgment at the last

day (James 5:3). See on Lk. 11:23.

3:14 Our reward in the Kingdom will in some way be related to the work of upbuilding we have

done with our brethren and sisters in this life. The "reward" which 1 Cor. 3:14 speaks of is the

"work" we have built in God's ecclesia in this life. In agreement with this, Paul describes those he

had laboured for as the reward he would receive in the Kingdom (Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19).

3:15 There is the implication in the New Testament that whoever lives the life of Christ will convert

others to the Way. 1 Cor. 3 speaks of the converts a man builds on the foundation of Christ. They,

like himself, must go through the fire of judgment, and if they are lost, then he himself will still be

saved (if he has remained faithful). The implication is that all of us build up others, and our work is

tried in the end.

The accepted will be saved "yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:15). The fire of condemnation will as it were

burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through

condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.

3:18,19- see on Job 5:13.

260

3:18,19 Job was the greatest of the men of the east (Job 1:3), people who were renowned in the

ancient world for their wisdom (cp. Mt. 2:1; 1 Kings 4:30). Thus Job as the Jews would have been

full of worldly wisdom, and this is maybe behind Paul's words of 1 Cor.3:18,19: "If any man

among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the

wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written (quoting Job 5:13, which is Eliphaz

speaking about Job), He taketh the wise in their own craftiness". Thus again Job is equated with the

false wisdom of the Judaizers, who were using "excellency of speech… wisdom... enticing words of

man's wisdom" ( 1 Cor. 2:1,4), to corrupt the believers from the "simplicity that is in Christ", "as the

serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (2 Cor. 11:3).

3:19 The view that every single word we read in our translations of the Bible is ‗true‘ can lead us

into the problems evident in many Bible fundamentalists. Take the words of Eliphaz against Job

(Job 5:13). They were wrong words (Job 42:7). Yet they are quoted in 1 Cor. 3:19. Wrong

statements can still be recorded under inspiration and even quoted. Take the mocking of

Sennacherib. It‘s recorded under inspiration, blasphemous as it was.

3:23 If we believe that all in Christ, all who are ‗Christian‘, will be in the Kingdom…then, we will

act joyfully and positively toward our community, abounding in hope. We have to assume that our

brethren are likewise going to be there; for we cannot condemn them. Therefore we must assume

they too will be saved along with us. Consider how Paul repeatedly has this attitude when dealing

with his apostate Corinthians: ―For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the

world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ‘s‖ (1

Cor. 3:21-23). See too 1 Cor. 6:3,11; 10:17; 13:12; 15:22,57; 2 Cor. 1:7; 3:18; 5:1.

4:2- see on Heb. 3:5.

4:3 Paul could say to his critics within the brotherhood that it mattered so little to him how he was

judged by them, for he had only One who would judge him (1 Cor. 4:3). Indeed, Paul‘s thought here

is building on what he had earlier reasoned in 1 Cor. 2:15, that the spiritual man ―himself is judged

of no man‖. There was only One judge, and the believer is now not condemned if he is in Christ

(Rom. 8:1). He that truly believes in Christ is not condemned, but has passed from death to life (Jn.

3:18; 5:24). So however men may claim to judge and condemn us, the ultimate truth is that no man

can judge / condemn us, and we who are spiritual should live life like that, not fearing the pathetic

judgments of men, knowing that effectively we are not being judged by them. How radically

different is Paul‘s attitude to so many of us. The fear of criticism and human judgment leads us to

respond as animals do to fear- the instinct of self-defence and self-preservation is aroused. We

defend ourselves as we would against hunger or impending death. Yet here the radical implications

of grace burst through. We are not our best defence. We have an advocate who is also the judge, the

almighty Lord Jesus; we have a preserver and saviour, the same omnipotent Lord, so that we need

not and must not trust in ourselves. By not trusting in this grace of salvation, we end up desperately

trusting ourselves for justification and preservation and salvation, becoming ever more guilty at our

abysmal and pathetic failures to save and defend ourselves.

4:3-5 The message of imputed righteousness was powerfully challenging. For the whole message of

Romans is that our only acceptability is through God counting us righteous although we are not...

and it is His judgment which matters, not that of the million watching eyes of society around us. 1

Cor. 4:3-5 teach that the judgment of others is a "very small thing", an irrelevancy, compared with

Christ's judgment of us. The fact that we have only one judge means that whatever others think or

judge of us is irrelevant. That may be easy enough to accept as a theory, but the reality for those

living in collective societies was far-reaching. Appreciating the ultimate importance of our standing

before God means that we have a conscience towards Him, and a rightful sense of shame before

Him for our sins.

4:4- see on Gal. 6:4.

261

Paul says that although he does not feel he has done anything wrong, this does not of itself mean

that he is justified in God's sight (1 Cor. 4:4). We cannot, therefore, place too much importance on

living according to our natural sense of right and wrong. This is the very error which has led gay

'Christians' to interpret the Bible in the light of their own desires, rather than allowing themselves to

be taught by God's word. "It's OK in my conscience" is their only justification. They and many

others give more credibility to what they perceive to be guidance coming from within them, than to

God's word of Truth. The words of the Lord Jesus in Lk. 11:35 seem especially relevant: "Take

heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. "It's OK in my conscience" is indeed dark light.

Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There

is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (Jn. 12:48), not how far we have lived

according to our conscience.

―He that judgeth me is the Lord‖ (1 Cor. 4:4) = ―Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord‖ (Is.

49:4). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are

applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

1 Cor. 4:3-5 appeals to the reality of God's future judgment as a basis for not paying too much

attention to how man judges us. If it is God's judgment that means everything to us, what men say

or think about us, or what we perceive they do, will not weigh so heavily with us. The ultimate

reality of our lives is the sense of God's future judgment, not the awareness of man's present

judgment. If we really grasp the simple fact that God alone is judge, that there is only One who can

judge us, that Christ will come, then we will say with Paul from our hearts: ―He that is spiritual…

himself is judged of no man‖ (1 Cor. 2:15). Of course, men do judge us; and it hurts. But we are to

act and feel according to the fact that ultimately, they can not judge us. For there is only One judge,

to whom we shall all soon give account.

Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to conclude: "But with me it is a

very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own

self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me [right now]

is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:3-4). The judge is the justifier, according to this argument. Paul is not justified

by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact that God alone is judge through

Christ [another first principle] means that nobody can ultimately justify us or condemn us. "Many

seek the favour of the ruler ['judge']; but every man's judgment cometh from the Lord" (Prov.

29:26). The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our own efforts at

self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and therefore He

alone can and will justify.

4:5 He will reveal the hidden things of darkness (the human heart), and will make manifest the

counsels of the hearts (1 Cor. 4:5). Of course He knows these anyway; but He will make them

manifest to us. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God's- He knows our lives and spiritual

position already. The day of judgment is to purify us (Mal. 3:2)- not ultimately, for that has been

done by the Lord's blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment

reveals the dross of our lives to us and in this sense purges us of those sins. Without the judgment,

we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of

God's grace. The judgment will declare God's glory, His triumph over every secret sin of His

people. The heathen will be judged "that the nations may know themselves to be but men" (Ps.

9:20)- self knowledge is the aim, not extraction of information so that God can make a decision.

And it was the same with Israel: "Judge the bloody city... (i.e.) shew her all her abominations" (Ez.

22:2).

At judgment God "shall bring forth thy righteousness (good deeds) as the light, and thy judgment as

the noon day" (Ps. 37:6). The sins of the rejected and the good deeds of the righteous will be

publicly declared at the judgment, even if they are concealed from men in this life (1 Tim. 5:24,25).

This is how men will receive "praise of God" (1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:7; Rom. 2:29). The wicked will

262

see the generous deeds of the righteous rehearsed before them; and will gnash their teeth and melt

away into condemnation (Ps. 112:9,10).

Whilst we ourselves will feel the need to "confess to God" (Rom. 14:11,12) our failures and

unworthiness, we have shown earlier how our Lord will not mention these to us, but instead joyfully

catalogue to us those things which have so pleased him in our lives. This will be to our genuine

amazement: "Lord, when..?". Keeping a subconscious inventory of our own good works now will

surely prevent us from being in this category. 1 Cor. 4:5 speaks of us as receiving "praise of God" at

the judgment, presumably in the form of praise for the good works which we are not aware of, as

outlined in the parable (cp. Ps. 134:3). "Praise" suggests that our Lord will show quite some

enthusiasm in this. Not he that commends himself will be approved [cp. The listing of good deeds

by the rejected], "but whom the Lord commendeth" in as it were listing the good deeds of the

accepted (2 Cor. 10:18).

There are some instructive parallels here:

"Bring to light" "Make manifest"

"The hidden things of" "The counsels of"

"Darkness" "The hearts"

The hidden man is therefore "the counsels" of the heart. How we speak and reason to ourselves in

our self-talk, this is the indicator of the hidden man. This will be 'made manifest' to the owners of

those hearts, the Greek implies. "All things are naked and opened" unto God anyway; the second

coming will reveal nothing to Him. The making manifest of our hidden man will be to ourselves and

to others. The purpose of the judgment seat is therefore more for our benefit than God's; it will be

the ultimate self-revelation of ourselves. Then we will know ourselves, just as God knows us (1 Cor.

13:12). Through a glass, darkly, we can now see the outline of our spiritual self (1 Cor. 13:11,12),

although all too often we see this picture in the spiritual mirror of self-examination, and then

promptly forget about it (James 1:23,24).

4:6 For Paul, the fact that he had only one judge meant that he could genuinely feel that it mattered

very little to him how others judged him (1 Cor. 4:4-6). The idea of worrying only about God's

judgment of us rather than man's lies behind Prov. 29:26: "Many seek the ruler's favourable

judgment; but a man's judgment [i.e. the ultimate judgment, the only one worth having] comes from

the Lord". But this takes quite some faith to believe- for in this age of constant communication

between people about other people, we all tend to get worried by others' judgments and opinions of

us. But ultimately there is only one judge- God, and not the guys at work, your kid sister, your older

brother, the woman in apartment 35. The idea of the court of Heaven is a great comfort to us in the

pain of being misjudged by men. It's a case of seeing what isn't visible to the human eye.

1 Corinthians contains many warnings against being "puffed up" (1 Cor. 4:6,8,19; 5:2,6; 13:4).

These warnings often come in the context of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Passover lamb. The fact He

died as He did means that we must live Passover lives without the leaven of pride and being puffed

up about leading brethren etc. Perceiving His greatness will mean that we will not seek to follow

men.

4:9- see on Ex. 7:4; Rom. 3:19; 1 Cor. 12:28; Acts 23:6.

1 Cor. 4:9 seems to make a difference between "the world" and "men", as if Paul is using "the

world" here as meaning 'the world of believers'.

There is a sense in which the Angels have limited knowledge about our spiritual capacities; "We are

made a spectacle... to Angels" (1 Cor. 4:9) implies that the Angels look on at the sufferings God

has brought on us through our guardian Angel, and intensely scrutinize how we are acting as if

263

earnestly watching a theatre play (so the word "spectacle" implies). Thus they are anxiously looking

for the outcome of their trials on us, not knowing the final result. The fact that only at the judgement

will the names of the worthy be confessed to the Angels by Jesus (Rev. 3:5) makes it appear that the

ultimate outcome of our probations is not known to our guardians, hence their eagerness in our lives

to see how we react. It is not until the harvest that they are sent out to root out of the Kingdom all

things that offend (Mt. 13:41).

4:9,10 ―We are despised‖ (1 Cor. 4:9,10; 2 Cor. 4:9,10) = ―Him whom man despiseth‖ (Is. 49:7).

This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to

Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

4:13 Paul described himself as the offscouring of all things- using the very language of condemned

Israel (Lam. 3:45). He so wanted to see their salvation that he identified with them to this extent. By

doing so he was reflecting in essence the way the Lord Jesus so identified Himself with us sinners,

as our representative, "made sin" [whatever precisely this means] for the sake of saving us from that

sin (2 Cor. 5:21).

4:14 It is significant that when dealing with Corinth's belief of those who sought to totally black

Paul's character, he writes: "I write not these things (his answer to their allegations) to shame you..."

(1 Cor.4:14). Yet when dealing with their doctrinal apostacy, Paul does seek to shame them: " Some

have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" (1 Cor. 15:34).

4:15 Instructors- The leaders of the Corinth ecclesia were no more than a paidogogos (1 Cor.

4:15,16), a slave who had to take the little children to school, where they would be taught by the

teacher (cp. Jesus).

4:15,16 Paul constantly sets himself up as an example to his converts; and whenever he bids them

‗follow me‘, it is in the context of his example as a preacher (Phil. 3:15-17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Cor.

4:16; 10:31-11:1; Eph. 5:1; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 3:7-9). This perhaps accounts for the otherwise

surprising lack of specific encouragement to his converts to preach which we observe in Paul‘s

writings. He understood his role to be initiatory- he speaks of his preaching as planting (1 Cor. 3:6-

9; 9:7,10,11), laying foundations (Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10), giving birth (1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10)

and betrothing (2 Cor. 11:2). His aim was for his converts to also preach and develop self-sustaining

ecclesias. ―Paul‘s method of shaping a community was to gather converts around himself and by his

own behaviour to demonstrate what he taught‖, following a pattern practiced by the contemporary

moral philosophers.

4:16 Paul is set before us as "a Christ-appointed model" of the ideal believer. He himself seems to

have sensed this happening when he so often invites us to follow his example (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1;

Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:10; 2 Thess. 3:7,9). He does this quite self-consciously,

for example: ―I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many that

they may be saved... let no man seek his own, but another‘s [profit]‖ (1 Cor. 10:33,24). He even

says that he doesn't do things which he could legitimately allow himself, because he knew he was

being framed as their example (2 Thess. 3:7,9).

4:17- see on Acts 2:46.

4:20 The Gospel demands a response. The Greek word euangelia actually implies this, although the

English translation 'good news' may mask it. There is an inscription from Priene in Asia Minor

which reads: "The birthday of the god [=Augustus] was for the world the beginning of good news

[euangelia] owing to him". The Gospel is not therefore just a proclamation of good news, e.g. an

emperor's birthday. Euangelia meant the response to the good news; the good news and the

response one must make to it are all bound up within the one word. "For the [Gospel of the]

Kingdom of God is not [so much] in word, but in power" - the Gospel isn't so much words and

ideas, as a life lived. For in the previous verse Paul has argued: "I will know, not the word of them

which are puffed up, but the power", i.e. what their lives show of the things they profess (1 Cor.

264

4:19,20 RV). And we must ask ourselves whether our personal Christianity is mere words, or the

power of a life living out those words.

5:1 Note how Paul deals with ecclesial problems in places like Corinth. He doesn‘t write to the

elders and tell them to sort it out and clean up the ecclesia. He writes to every member of the

ecclesia. He confronts the whole ecclesia with his concerns over pastoral issues- not just the pastors.

He tells the whole ecclesia of his concern about how they have not dealt with flagrant sin amongst

them (1 Cor. 5; 6:1-11). The Lord‘s teaching in Mt. 18:15-18 doesn‘t ask us to refer our concerns

about others‘ behaviour in the ecclesia to the elders. He asks us to personally take the matter up with

the individual. His church was to be built on individuals who followed Him personally and closely.

5:2 Any such separations are brought forth from much sorrow; Corinth ecclesia were told that they

should have mourned as they withdrew from one who had left the faith (1 Cor. 5:2). "The whole

house of Israel" were commanded to "mourn" the necessary destruction of Nadab and Abihu (Lev.

10:6). Samuel mourned and God repented when Saul was finally rejected (1 Sam. 15:35). Paul wept

when he wrote about some in the ecclesia who had fallen away (Phil. 3:17-19). It must be said that

'block disfellowship'- the cutting off of hundreds of brethren and sisters because theoretically they

fellowship a weak brother- hardly enables 'mourning' and pleading with each of those who are

disfellowshipped.

5:4- see on 1 Cor. 1:2.

The principles of Mt. 18:16,17 concerning dealing with personal offences are applied by Paul to

dealing with moral and doctrinal problems at Corinth (= 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Cor. 5:4,5,9; 6:1-6).

We are all priests, a community of them. This is why Paul writes to whole ecclesias rather than just

the elders. 1 Cor. 5:4,5,11 make it clear that discipline was the responsibility of all, ―the many‖ as

Paul put it in 2 Cor., not just the elders. Even in Philippians, where bishops and deacons are

specifically mentioned, Paul writes to ―all the saints‖.

5:5 Who the Lord Jesus was is who He will be in the future; in the same way as who we are now, is

who we will eternally be. For our spirit, our essential personality, will be saved in the day of the

Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5). ―Flesh and blood‖ will not inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50); and yet the

risen, glorified Lord Jesus was ―flesh and bones‖ (Lk. 24:39). We will be who we essentially are

today, but with Spirit instead of blood energizing us. It‘s a challenging thought, as we consider the

state of our ―spirit‖, the essential ‗me‘ which will be preserved, having been stored in Heaven in the

Father‘s memory until the day when it is united with the new body which we will be given at

resurrection. For in all things the Lord is our pattern; and we will in that day be given a body like

unto His glorious body (Phil. 3:21)- which is still describable as ―flesh and bones‖ in appearance

(Lk. 24:39).

5:5

Delivering Unto Satan

Comments

1. The purpose of this delivering was in order ―that the spirit may be saved‖. If Satan is intent on

making people sin and alienated from God, why should what he does to them result in them being

saved? It is by the experiences of life that God controls, that we are spiritually developed

(Heb.12:5–11).

2. How could the church at Corinth deliver the fallen brother to Satan if no one knows where to

locate him?

3. ―Destruction‖ can also imply ―punishment‖ (e.g. 2 Thess.1:9). Are we to think that God would

work in cooperation with an angel who is rebelling against Him?

265

4. Notice that Satan is not described as eagerly entering the man, as we would expect if Satan is

constantly trying to influence all men to sin and to turn believers away from God. The church (v. 4)

is told to deliver the man to Satan.

Suggested Explanations

1. One of the big ―Satans‖ – adversaries – to the early church was the Roman authority of the time,

who, as the first century progressed, became increasingly opposed to Christianity. The Greek phrase

―to deliver‖ is used elsewhere, very often in a legal sense, of delivering someone to a civil authority,

e.g.:

– Someone can ―deliver you to the judge‖ (Mt. 5:25).

– ―They will deliver you up to the councils‖ (Mt. 10:17).

– The Jews ―shall deliver (Jesus) to the Gentiles‖ (Mt. 20:19)

– ―The Jews will... deliver (Paul) into the hands of the Gentiles‖ (Acts 21:11).

– ―Yet was I delivered prisoner‖ (Acts 28:17).

So is Paul advising them to hand over the sinful brother to the Roman authorities for punishment?

The sin he had committed was incest, and this was punishable under the Roman law. Remember

that ―destruction‖ also implies ―punishment‖. Leander Keck demonstrates that the behaviour of the

incestuous man was ―contrary to both Jewish and Roman law‖, rendering him liable to punishment

by those authorities (1)

.

2. ―Satan‖ here may simply refer to the man‘s evil desires. He had given way to them in committing

the sin of incest, and Paul is perhaps suggesting that if the church separates from the man and leaves

him to live a fleshly life for a time, maybe eventually he will come round to repentance so that

ultimately his spirit would be saved at the judgment. This is exactly what happened to the prodigal

son (Luke 15); living a life away from his spiritual family and totally following Satan – his evil

desires – resulted in him eventually repenting. Jeremiah 2:19 sums this up: ―Your own wickedness

shall correct you and your backslidings shall reprove you: know therefore and see that it is an evil

thing and bitter‖ (that they had done).

3. ―The flesh‖ does not necessarily mean ―the body‖. It may also refer to a way of life controlled by

our evil desires, i.e. Satan. Believers ―are not in the flesh, but in the spirit‖ (Rom. 8:9). This does

not mean that they are without physical bodies, but that they are not living a fleshly life. Before

conversion ―we were in the flesh‖ (Rom. 7:5). Galatians 5:19 mentions sexual perversion, which the

offender at Corinth was guilty of, as a ―work of the flesh‖. 1 John 3:5 (cp. v. 8), defines sins as the

―works of the Devil‖, thus equating the flesh and the Devil. Thus 1 Corinthians 5:5 could be

understood as ‗Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of Satan/the Devil‘, so that we

have Satan destroying Satan. It is impossible to understand this if we hold to the popular belief

regarding Satan. But if the first Satan is understood as the Roman authority and the second one as

the flesh, or sinful expressions of our evil desires, then there is no problem.

4. We have seen in our notes on Luke 10:18 that Satan is sometimes used in the context of

reminding us that physical illness is ultimately a result of our sin. It may be that the spirit – gifted

apostles in the first century had the power of afflicting sinful believers with physical illness or death

– e.g. Peter could order Ananias and Sapphira‘s death (Acts 5); some at Corinth were physically

―weak and sickly‖ as a punishment for abusing the communion service (1 Cor. 11:30); Jesus could

threaten the false teachers within the church at Thyatira with instant death unless they repented

(Rev. 2:22–23) and James 5:14–16 implies that serious illness of some members of the church was

due to their sins, and would be lifted if there was repentance. If the sickness mentioned here was an

ordinary illness, it does not follow that if a Christian repents of sin he will automatically be healed,

e.g. Job was afflicted with illness as a trial from God, not because he sinned. It was for the help and

266

healing of repentant believers who had been smitten in this way, that ―the gift of healing‖ was

probably mainly used in the early church (1 Cor. 12:9). Thus Paul‘s delivering the incestuous

brother to Satan and also delivering ―Hymaenaeus and Alexander... unto Satan, that they may learn

not to blaspheme‖ (1 Tim. 1:20), may have involved him smiting them with physical sickness due to

their following of Satan – their evil desires. Some time later Paul noted how Alexander still ―greatly

withstood our words‖ (2 Tim. 4:14,15). The extent of his withstanding Paul‘s preaching is made

apparent if we understand that Alexander had been struck ill by Paul before he wrote the first letter

to Timothy, but had still refused to learn his lesson by the time Paul wrote to Timothy again. Again,

notice that Satan would try and teach Alexander ―not to blaspheme‖ (1 Tim. 1:20). If Satan is an

evil person who is a liar and blasphemer of God‘s word, how can he teach a man not to blaspheme

God?

5. The same verb for ‗delivering over‘ occurs in the LXX of Job 2:6, where God ‗hands over‘ Job to

Satan, with the comment [in LXX]: ―you are to protect his psyche, his spirit‖. The connection

between the passages would suggest to me that Job was in need of spiritual improvement, even

though he was imputed as being righteous (Job 1:1). Whatever, the point surely is that God handed a

person over to an adversary, for that person‘s spiritual salvation. The orthodox idea of God and

Satan being pitted in conflict just doesn‘t cut it here. Biblically, God is portrayed as in charge of any

‗Satan‘ / adversary, and using ‗satans‘ at His will for the spiritual improvement of people, rather

than their destruction. The story of Job is a classic example. Are we to really understand that there is

a personal being called Satan who‘s disobedient to God, out of His control, and bent on leading

people to their spiritual destruction? No way, Jose. Not yet, Josette. 1 Cor. 5:5 and the record of Job

teach the very dead opposite. And by all means bring on board here 2 Tim. 2:26, which speaks of

people being caught in the Devil‘s trap at God‘s will / desire (2)

.

Notes (1) Leander Keck, Paul and His Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) p. 106.

(2) This is the translation offered by H.A. Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: C.U.P., 2006) p.

119.

5:7 As a man or woman seriously contemplates the cross, they are inevitably led to a self-

knowledge and self-examination which shakes them to the bone. We are to ―purge out" the old

leaven from us at the memorial meeting (1 Cor. 5:7). But the same Greek word for ―purge" is found

in passages which speak of how the blood of Christ purges us: Jn. 15:2; Heb. 10:2. We purge

ourselves because Christ has purged us. This is the connection between His death for us, and our

self-examination.

5:8 "Therefore let us keep the feast (the breaking of bread, the new Passover), not with old leaven...

of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor.5:8). Paul's

selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. This is echoing Moses'

command to keep the Passover feast without leaven (Ex. 12:15; Dt. 16:3). Paul saw himself as

Moses in trying to save a generally unresponsive and ungrateful Israel.

In Dt. 16:3 the unleavened bread is called the "bread of affliction", whilst in 1 Cor. 5:8 it is called

the "unleavened bread of sincerity and Truth", as if being sincere and true and not having malice

and bitterness in our hearts is a result of much mental affliction and exercising of the mind. So to

keep the feast we have to search our houses, our lives, for anything like leaven- anything that puffs

us up, that distorts us from the true smallness and humility we should have, that corrupts our

sincerity. By nature we have so much pride in us, so much that puffs us up. We should always find

some leaven in us every time we examine ourselves. The Jews used to search their houses with

candles, looking for any sign of leaven. So we too must look into every corner of our lives with the

candle of the word. Similarly before the great Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah there was a

searching for idols which were then thrown down.

267

Paul calls on the Corinthians to keep the feast ―with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,‖

which he contrasts with ―malice and evil‖ (1 Cor. 5:8). Truth is set up against evil- not against

wrong interpretations of Bible passages.

5:9-13 In 1 Cor. 5:9-13 Paul says that he doesn‘t intend the converts ―to get out of the world‖ but

rather to mix with the greedy, robbers and idolaters who are in the world. We know from later in

this epistle that Christians in Corinth were free to use the pagan meat markets, and to accept

invitations for meals in pagan homes. The Corinthians seemed to think that because they were self-

consciously separate from the world, therefore it didn‘t matter how they lived within the

community. It seems they had misunderstood Paul‘s previous letter about separation from sinful

people as meaning they must be separate from the world. But Paul is saying that no, one must mix

with the world, but separate from sin within our own lives. However, by the end of the 1st century,

‗going out of the world‘ became the main preoccupation with some Christians, even though they

themselves often developed low moral standards as a result of this. It was these ascetic groups who

so over analysed some aspects of doctrine- for they had nothing better to do with their time- that

they ended up with false doctrine. They converted only from within their groups, so the world was

not witnessed to, the fire of love and compassion for humanity that was the hallmark of true

Christianity was lost, and thus by the 2nd century the Truth both doctrinally and in practice had

been lost.

6:2 "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world" (1 Cor. 6:2) is referring back to Mt.

19:28, which promises all those who have followed Christ that they will sit on thrones of judgment.

That this promise was not just to the disciples is evident from Lk. 22:30; 1:33 cp. Rev. 3:21. It's as if

Paul is saying: 'Now come on, you ought to know this, it's in the Gospels'. He expected other

believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ.

6:3- see on Heb. 11:7.

We have to assume our brethren will be in the Kingdom. Paul did this even with Corinth; he wrote

of how ―we shall judge angels‖ (1 Cor. 6:3) when we are all accepted in the Kingdom. And his way

of writing to the Thessalonians about the resurrection and judgment assumes that all of his readers

would be accepted (―so shall we ever be with the Lord… ye are all the children of light‖). We too

can do nothing else but see each other like that. The impact of this is colossal. We‘d rather shy away

from it. But meditate awhile upon it.

If the Angels did not receive their final forgiveness and justification until some time after their

'probations'- i. e. at the time of Christ- it may be that the sinful ones will not receive their final

punishment until later- hence we "shall judge Angels" (1 Cor. 6:3- the idea of judging ecclesial

elders at the last day seems a bit far fetched!). "The Angels which kept not their first estate... He

hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day" (Jude 6)-

clearly the judgement at the second coming. See on Jude 6; Heb. 9:23; Lk. 11:32.

Under the Law, there was a referral system up to Moses, smaller cases being dealt with by the 70

elders and family heads. These 'elohim' must surely point forward to us, the King-priests of the

future age. It may well be that some of the cases tax even our spirit nature to resolve, and they are

referred up to other saints with greater Spiritual endowments than we, and finally to Christ. "We

shall judge angels" (1 Cor.6:3) may refer to each believer being in the position to pass judgment on

a messenger or representative of, e.g., a town or village. This mention of angel-messengers implies

that we will be geographically located in one place in a region, to where cases must be brought by a

messenger.

6:3,5 It may be that 1 Cor. 6:3,5 refers to this idea of different levels amongst the Angels. We are to

―judge‖ our brethren, not in condemning them but in discerning between them, in the same way as

we will ―judge Angels‖ in the future. Then, we will not condemn them, but perceive / discern the

differences between them.

268

6:4 It was usual for the head of the household to automatically be the leader of the religion which

his household practised. But for the true Christians, this was not necessarily so to be; for the Lord

had taught that it was the servant who was to lead, and the least esteemed in the ecclesia were to

judge matters (1 Cor. 6:4). Elders of the household fellowships had to be chosen on the basis of

their spiritual qualification, Paul taught. The radical nature of these teachings is so easily lost on us.

Sometimes, what appears to be hyperbole may in fact be irony. Thus when Paul says that the least

respected member should settle disputes, he was not necessarily saying that this in fact was what he

was advocating (the NT teaching about eldership would contradict this); he was surely using irony.

Likewise in his teaching about head coverings, Paul is surely using irony: 'If you throw away your

head covering, you may as well throw away your hair!' is how I read 1 Cor. 11:5. "...Seeing ye

yourselves are wise" is one of several more evident uses of irony in Corinthians.

6:7 Paul taught his hopeless Corinthians that they ought not to be taking each other to court in the

world, but rather should get brethren to settle disputes between brethren. But then he offers the

higher level: don‘t even do this, but ―rather take wrong... rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded‖

(1 Cor. 6:7).

6:9 Paul‘s reasoning about not going to law against those whom we consider to be in the wrong is

based upon his reasoning that there will be a future judgment, and thieves, covetous persons,

extortioners etc.- the very ones we might be tempted to take to law- will not inherit the Kingdom. If

we take these types to law, Paul reasons, it‘s as if we don‘t know this basic first principle- that they

will not be in the Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:1-10). And this is surely judgment enough. They don‘t need

our judgment now. Rather should we receive motivation to preach to others from the thought of

judgment to come.

Paul warns the Corinthians not to be deceived by the idea that homosexuals would enter the

Kingdom of God; the implication was that there were homosexuals being wrongly tolerated within

the Corinthian church, who were justifying their behaviour as being worthy of God's Kingdom (1

Cor. 6:9-11).

In appealing to the Corinthians not to take each other to court, Paul reasons: "Know ye not that the

unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom?" (1 Cor. 6:9). He uses the "know ye not?" rubric several

times in his writings (e.g. 6:19 in this context) to point the new converts back to the implications of

the basic doctrines they had recently converted to. If we believe that there will be a righteous

judgment, and those responsible who have sinned will suffer the awful experience of rejection…

then why seek to judge them yourself, in this life? Why worry about the prosperity of the wicked

within the ecclesia if you really believe that the wicked will not be in the Kingdom? That is such an

awful thing that one need not worry about trying to judge them ourselves in this life. Take comfort

in the fact that judgment is coming… that's Paul's message, built as it is on the implications of basic

doctrines.

Paul lists sins which will exclude from God's Kingdom; he includes adulterers and thieves, as well

as homosexuals. It is evident that he does not mean those who have committed one act of theft or

adultery (for this would, e.g., exclude David from God's Kingdom). He is evidently referring to

those who continue in this way of life, justifying it as spiritually acceptable. The church is in

embryo the Kingdom of God (Col. 1:13), and therefore what will evidently be excluded from God's

future political Kingdom must be excluded from the church now. It is sometimes argued that Paul is

only condemning homosexual prostitution, and much argument has revolved around the exact

meaning of the word rendered "homosexual" in the modern versions. It must be realized that in New

Testament times, there was no Greek word that exactly corresponds with the present English term

"homosexual". "Virtually every Greek lexicon has understood these words (malakoi and

arsenokoitai) to be referring to homosexuality... we also find these terms in classical Greek

literature (e.g. Lucian and Aristotle) sometimes applied to obviously gay persons" - not just

269

homosexual prostitutes, as some gay 'Christians' claim. The linguistic evidence that arsenokoitai

refers to any form of homosexuality could be multiplied many times over. Harold Greenlee

concludes: "It is clear that an arsenkoites in the New Testament is a man who goes to bed with a

male for sexual purposes. This has been its accepted meaning ever since the time of ancient Greek

literature". The claim that the word is in the plural and therefore should be seen as an intensive

plural, referring to homosexual prostitutes, is desperate. Paul talks about groups of individuals, in

the plural, throughout the passage. Some have even gone so far as to claim that these words have no

sexual connotation, but the context is clearly sexual (v.9). Again, this demonstrates the intellectual

desperation of the gay 'Christian' position.

6:10 Drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom; so say 1 Cor. 6:10 and Gal. 5:21. Does this mean that

no alcoholic who can‘t quit will be there? No. On what basis, then, will they be there? Because they

are repentant. They have a state of mind that turns back time and again from what they have done.

It‘s easy to point the finger at alcoholics. Theirs is a sin that is open and goes before them to

judgment. But we are all, sadly, habitual sinners. We sin, repent, and do the same again.

6:11 Having warned that unrepentant fornicators and drunkards will not be in the Kingdom of God,

Paul goes on: ―And such were some of you: but you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified

in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God‖ (1 Cor. 6:11). References to washing,

the name, Jesus, the Spirit, God... all inevitably make this an allusion to our baptism into the Name.

Because they had been justified, counted as sinless due to their baptism into Christ, therefore they

should:

a) recognize their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to glorify God in spirit and

body

b) realize that they are not their own, to live their lives just as they wish

c) act as if they are indeed joined to Christ

d) let the power of Christ‘s resurrection and new life work in them

Clearly enough, the Corinthians were still fornicating and getting drunk. Yet, Paul says that this is

how they used to be. Evidently he means that they have changed status- and they should live that

out in practice. But Paul delves deeper into the psychology of sin‘s self-justification. They were

saying that ―Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats‖. In other words, we have basic human

desires and there are ways to satisfy them. Paul‘s response is basically that if we are in Christ, then

we have vowed to put to death those desires, and to fulfil them is to act as if they are still alive and

well. Further, in baptism we are counted to have died to them; and we seek to live the new life,

empowered by the resurrection life which is now in the Lord, whose body we belong to. The

comfort and challenge comes to Christian alcoholics today: You are washed, you are sanctified, you

are justified, counted as righteous. Think back to your baptism. That‘s what happened then. Now,

try to live out that life. Act, or at least try to act, how God perceives you. The alcoholic needs to

remember, as the Romans also needed to, the colossal significance of the fact they have been

baptized. They have a responsibility and also tremendous, boundless possibility because of this.

Remind them of it. Leave some photos or reminders of their early days in the Lord around the

house. Talk about it...

6:11 Is it going too far to think that when Paul writes about believers being sanctified and justified,

in that order (1 Cor. 6:11), he reflects his absorption of how his Lord had referred to the Father as

firstly sanctified and then justified in Jn. 17:11,25?

Isaiah 30:1 condemns the Jews for seeking forgiveness their own way rather than by the gift of

God's Spirit: they "cover with a covering (atonement), but not of my Spirit, that they may add

(rather than subtract) sin to sin". Is.44:3 describes the latter day forgiveness of Israel in similar

terms: "I will pour... floods upon the dry ground (spiritually barren-Is.53:2): I will pour My Spirit

upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring". The blessing of Abraham's seed is in their

270

forgiveness through Christ (Acts 3:25,26)- which is here parallelled with the pouring out of the

Spirit upon the Jews. This is clearly the language of Joel 2 and Acts 2. Gal.3:14 puts all this in so

many words: "That the blessing of Abraham (forgiveness) might come on the Gentiles through

Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit". Thus 1 Cor.6:11 speaks of being

washed from our sins "by the spirit of our God". There is a parallelism in Romans between us

receiving "grace... the atonement... the Spirit" (1:5; 5:11; 8:15), showing the connection between the

gift ("grace") of the Spirit and the forgiveness which leads to the atonement. It is hard to overstate

how much the New Testament builds on the language and concepts of the Old Testament, especially

in view of the large primarily Jewish readership the epistles would have had. Time and again in the

Pentateuch and Joshua God promises to give the land to His people- "the land that the Lord thy God

giveth thee to possess it" is a common phrase. The counterpart of the land under the new covenant is

salvation; that is therefore the gift of God now in prospect, with its associated forgiveness of sins.

6:12 It makes an interesting study to analyze the areas of Paul's writing where he makes most

intense use of the title "Lord" for Jesus. One such passage is in 1 Cor. 6:12- 7:40, where Paul

addresses issues relating to sexual self-control. Here the density of usage of the title "Lord" is higher

than anywhere else in his writings. And he wasn't merely playing with words- the idea clearly is that

the Lordship of Jesus is to have a gripping practical effect upon our lives.

6:13 The message and demand of Christ in moral terms would have stood out starkly and

attractively, despite all the first century objections to Christianity; and so it should be with us, living

in identical circumstances. In the Graeco-Roman world, sexual immorality was just the done thing.

The feeling was that the body is essentially evil, therefore what was done with the body wasn‘t that

great a deal. The call of the Gospel was that the body is for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13)- something

totally unheard of. And Paul places sexual sins at the beginning of his list of works of the flesh in

Gal. 5, labouring the point to the Corinthians that sin involving the body was in fact especially bad.

This was radical stuff in a culture where prostitution and sexual immorality were seen as an almost

necessary part of religion. Yet the Christian teaching of chastity was actually attractive to people

precisely because of its radical difference. And yet we can be sure that this was also a barrier to the

general mass of humanity at the time. This is just one of many examples where Christianity

consciously broke through deeply held boundaries and worldviews. The self-consciousness of how

the Gospel did this was bound to make it obnoxious to the majority.

It seems that there were some in the first century who reasoned: "Meats for the belly, and the belly

for meats", implying that satisfying our sexual needs was just the same as satisfying our physical

hunger. Hence Paul's response: "[No...] the body is not for fornication" (1 Cor. 6:13).

6:14 Therefore, Paul says, smashing through all Corinth's rationalizations of their sin, "know ye not"

(isn't it obvious to you?) that we should not become one body with a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:15). This

isn't just because we belong to the body of Christ and manifest Him; it is also because we are

representative of us all who are in that body, and we wouldn't wish to bring His body, i.e. all the

other believers, into such an inappropriate position. What you do, we all do. And the Lord Jesus has

delegated His reputation in the eyes of this world to us, who are His body to them. The wonder of

being baptized into His Name, entering the body of Christ (1 Cor. 6:14 matches our resurrection

with that of the Lord) means that like our early brethren, we will rejoice to suffer shame for the sake

of carrying that Name (Mt. 10:24,25). It will be "enough" for us that we know something of our

Lord's sufferings. The more we reflectively read the Gospels, the more we will know the nature and

extent of His sufferings, and the more we will see in our own something of His.

Pause for a moment to reflect that the Lord‘s resurrection is a pattern for our own. This is the whole

meaning of baptism. ―God has both raised the Lord and will raise us up through his power‖ (1 Cor.

6:13,14). Yet there were evident continuities between the Jesus who lived mortal life, and the Jesus

who rose again. His mannerisms, body language, turns of phrase, were so human- even after His

resurrection. And so who we are now, as persons, is who we will eternally be. Because of the

271

resurrection, our personalities in the sum of all their relationships and nuances, have an eternal

future. But from whence do we acquire those nuances, body languages, etc? They arise partly from

our parents, from our inter-relations with others etc; we are the sum of our relationships. And this is

in fact a tremendous encouragement to us in our efforts for others; for the result of our parenting,

our patient effort and grace towards others, will have an eternal effect upon others. Who we help

them become is, in part, who they will eternally be. Job reflected that if a tree is cut down, it

sprouts (Heb. yaliph) again as the same tree; and he believed that after his death he would likewise

sprout again (yaliph) at the resurrection (Job 14:7-9,14,15). There will be a continuity between who

we were in mortal life, and who we will eternally be- just as there is between the pruned tree and the

new tree which grows again out of its stump.

Because He rose, therefore we stop committing sin (1 Cor. 6:14). We can't willfully sin if we

believe in the forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because

judgment day is coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered /

inspired faith in His forgiveness by the resurrection of Christ (Acts 17:30,31 AV mg.). The empty

tomb and all the Lord's glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as

well as of itself being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing

for them to repent and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them

by the resurrection. Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own.

We are therefore born again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identification with the

resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:3). The Ethiopian eunuch read of his representative Saviour as

also being childless, and being as he was, in the midst of a wilderness; and realizing this, he desired

to be baptized into Him. Grasping the representational nature of the Lord's death inspires response

in baptism, and yet the motivational power of this fact continues afterwards.

6:15 Paul wrote to his wayward Corinthians that he did not seek to shame them (1 Cor. 4:14); and

yet he writes in other places to them ―in order to shame them‖ (1 Cor. 6:15; 15:34). The sinner

needs to be allowed to feel the shame of their sin, they need to be ashamed of it, and yet not in a

harmful way; they need to realize that we are not seeking to shame them, although we recognize and

realize their shame.

6:16 The act of intercourse makes husband and wife "one flesh". In the same way as there is "one

body... one flesh" at this point, so "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:16,17).

Highlight, or underline, those phrases "one body" and "one flesh" in v.16, and also "one spirit" in

v.17. Don't miss the point. We must "stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together..."

(Phil. 1:27). We have seen that we are to be one spirit with the Lord, as a man is one body and spirit

with his wife (1 Cor. 6:16,17). But that same intense union is to be seen within the ecclesia

6:17- see on Acts 18:18.

We become one spirit with the Lord Jesus by baptism (1 Cor. 6:17; 12:13); thus what we feel deep

inside us in our spirit, in the spirit-man created within us, is automatically, instantly the feeling of

the Lord Jesus. And because He is one with the Father in Spirit, He can therefore relay our spirit to

Him. Rom. 8 is teaching that this is really what prayer is all about, and what we request verbally,

not knowing what to pray for as we ought, is not really the essence of prayer.

6:19 To willingly describe oneself as a slave of Christ was totally against the grain of first century

social norms- for to be a slave in any form took away a person's credibility and value. And yet Paul

especially in the context of describing his witness, speaks of himself as a slave of Jesus. He urges

the converts to see themselves as "not your own" because they have been bought as slaves by the

blood of the cross (1 Cor. 6:19,20). People were trained to take their place amongst fixed categories

within society- the whole idea of transformation, of taking ones' place amidst the ecclesia of Christ,

of being a saint, a called-out one, of being made free from how others' see us... was all so radical

that even those who converted to Christianity likely never grasped the full extent of the ideas.

272

Slaves in the first century were seen as mere bodies owned by their masters or mistresses. Hence

Rev. 18:13 describes slaves as somata, bodies. They were seen as both the economic and sexual

property of those who owned them. It seems Paul had this in mind when he spoke of how we have

one master, Christ, and our bodies are indeed not our own- but they are His, to be used according to

His wishes. For many slaves, this would‘ve meant running the risk of death or flogging. And yet

despite this radical demand, Christianity spread rapidly amongst the huge slave population of the

first century world.

The importance (the eternal importance) which attaches to our attitude to materialism is certainly

stressed. All that we have is not our own. It's not 'my money', it's not 'your car', it's not even 'my toe'

which you accidentally trod on. Yet we all cling on to what little we have; we get offended and

upset if we 'lose' it, or if we feel it is demanded of us. But not only is our material possession not

'ours'; "ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price" (1 Cor. 6:19,20). This is said in the

context of warning against abuse of our sexuality; it's not our body, so follow God's teaching

concerning it. We ourselves, the very essential me, and you, have been bought with the blood of the

Lord Jesus. If I don't own even myself, I certainly don't own anything material. Now, I am not my

own. I am a slave, bought by the Lord Jesus. The fact He is Lord of all means He is owner of

absolutely everything to do with us (Acts 10:36). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home.

The Lord will ask for ―my money... mine own"; we will be asked what we have done with our

Lord's money (Mt. 20:15; 25:27). All we have is God's; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back

in our giving, we are robbing God. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God

insisted through Malachi (3:8-12), you are robbing me if you don't give back, or even if you don't

give your heart to Him in faith. And will a man rob God? Will a man...? We must give God what

has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (Mt. 22:21); therefore we

have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our

own! Like David, we need to realize now, in this life, before the judgment, that all our giving is only

a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: "Of thine own have we given thee" (1

Chron. 19:14). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we

'have'. See on Lk. 16:12.

6:20- see on Mt. 13:46.

7:1

The Bible which we have bears the marks of the fact that it was written for a primary readership (as

well as for us), and the language used is proof of that. Take a read through 1 Corinthians 7 to see

what I mean. It is clear that Paul is answering some highly specific questions which the Corinthian

believers had written to him. He begins his paragraphs: ―Now concerning the things whereof ye

wrote unto me… now concerning virgins… now as touching things offered unto idols…‖ (1 Cor.

7:1,25; 8:1). We can almost imagine him sitting there with their letter in front of him, answering the

questions point by point. But we don‘t know what their questions were, and this fact makes the

interpretation of Paul‘s words here difficult; although of course the study of them is beneficial to us.

The fact is, some parts of the Bible which we have were written for its primary readership, and the

language used reflects this (Dt. 3:9,11).

Singleness In 1 Corinthians 7: Some Suggestions

I have to say in preface to this section that what follows is how I understand this passage in all

intellectual and expositional honesty. I as a married man can make no pretension to being able to

live up to the high standard which Paul seems to be suggesting. As with much in this commentary, I

offer the following exposition more to stimulate Bible-minded and prayerful meditation, rather than

as a prescriptive statement of how a believer must live.

273

The power of Paul's teaching about singleness is backed up by his personal situation. As a member

of the Council who condemned Stephen, he would have had to be married. An unmarried Orthodox

Jew would have been a contradiction in terms at that time. And yet he is evidently single in his

Christian ministry. It seems fairly certain that his wife either died or left him at the time of his

conversion, probably taking the children with her. If this is so, it gives extra poignancy to his

comment that he had suffered the loss of all things for the sake of his conversion (Phil. 3:8). The

chances are that he thought and wrote that with a difficult glance back to that Jerusalem girl, the

toddlers he'd never seen again, the life and infinite possibilities of what might have been... And it

gives another angle on his description of his converts as his children.

The Corinthians had written letters to Paul asking about questions such as singleness. His reply, in 1

Corinthians 7, is as relevant to us as any of his letters to any other ecclesia. It's true that he says that

his advice is prompted by "the present distress" and the fact that "the time is short", reference to the

'last days' in the run up to AD70. We have shown above that our last days are the real, major

fulfilment of the " distress" prophesied in Lk. 21, and that for those living just prior to the second

coming, " the time is short" .

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have

his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due

benevolence [in sexual matters]: and likewise also the wife...the wife hath not power of her own

body... defraud ye not one the other [sexually], except it be with consent, that ye may give

yourselves to fasting and prayer: and come together again [sexually] that Satan tempt you not for

your [abstinence]. But I speak this by permission, not of commandment" (1 Corinthians 7:1-6).

The second verse tends to be taken out of context, as if Paul is saying 'To stop you using the temple

prostitutes, you really should get married, because our sexual urges are just so strong'. But that

would be at variance with Paul's repeated emphasis that it is "better" to be single, and that single

believers should try not to marry (1 Corinthians 7: 7,8,27-29, 32-35, 38-40). The context of those

first six verses seems to be a question concerning whether it was good for a believing couple to

permanently stop sexual relationships, especially if only one of them wanted to do so. Paul seems to

be saying: 'Ideally, yes. But the chances are you won't keep it up, one of you will succumb to

fornication. So every baptized husband should have (sexually) his wife. Neither of them should

refuse sex to their partner, on whatever ground, spiritual or otherwise. However, in such cases why

not agree to abstinence for limited periods?'. "I speak this by permission, not of commandment"

must be linked with 1 Corinthians 7 v.12: "Now to the rest speak I, not the Lord (Jesus)". The

implication is that verses 1-6 were not a repetition of Christ's teaching, neither were vv. 12 ff. But

therefore we should read verses 7-11 as being 'the Lord Jesus speaking', i.e. Paul is repeating the

spirit of Christ's teaching. The content of v. 7-11 concerns being single and not divorcing; it is

significant that Paul says that what he said about marriage was him speaking "by permission", but

what he says about singleness is from the Lord Jesus Himself. Once this is grasped, it becomes

irrelevant to suggest that Paul is only telling some in Corinth to remain single at one point in time.

He is repeating the Lord's timeless message:

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one

after this manner and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good

that they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to

burn [in lust]" (1 Corinthians 7 v. 7-9).

Adam alone was "not good". Adam and Eve together are described as "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Paul

seems to have this in mind when he says three times that "it is good" to be single (1 Corinthians

7:1,8,26). But what's the point of this paradox? Perhaps Paul's point is: 'In the old, natural creation,

it wasn't good that a man should be alone. But now, in the new creation, it's good that a man does

try to live a single life, because as Adam married Eve, so we are now married to Christ'. Or it may

be that attention is being drawn to the fact that God's provision of Eve was the first of God's

274

countless concessions to human need. It was God's intention, ideally, that Adam be single, therefore

he was potentially "good" in his single state. But he couldn't handle it, therefore God made him a

partner. And therefore Paul says that to live the single life is "good". But in the same way as God

made a concession to Adam, so He does to believers now; "but if they cannot contain, let them

marry". Whether we agree this makes marriage a concession to human need or not, the fact is that

surely single believers should at least consider the single life. Likewise Paul's invitation to follow

his example of being single in order to devote himself to his Lord must be taken as seriously as his

other invitations to follow his example (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:33; 11:1). He knew that he was (in the words

of Robert Roberts) "a Christ-appointed model"; the record of his life is framed to give the picture of

the ideal believer.

The triple description of the single life as "good" (1 Corinthians 7:1,8,26) uses a Greek word which

means 'beautiful'. Yet many a lonely, longing sister might not see anything 'beautiful' about her

singleness; neither would she go along with 1 Corinthians 7:34, which says that the unmarried

woman has the advantage that she can single-mindedly give herself to the things of the Lord Jesus.

It may seem to her that she would serve the Lord much better if she were married. And probably so.

This raises the fundamental point that by "the unmarried" Paul doesn't mean 'the single ones in the

ecclesia'. He is referring to those who had consciously decided to be single, and to channel their

emotional energies into the Lord Jesus. Likewise "the widows" doesn't mean 'all those sisters in the

ecclesias who have lost husbands'. It surely means those widows who had devoted themselves to the

Lord Jesus rather than seeking another partner, after the pattern of widows devoting themselves to

the temple (cp. Lk. 2:37). The fact he recommends some younger widows to remarry (1 Tim. 5:14)

is proof enough that "widows" doesn't mean 'all widows'. It may be that single and widowed

brethren and sisters made open statements of their decision to devote themselves to the Lord Jesus.

1 Tim. 5:9 suggests there was a specific "number" of widows in the Ephesus ecclesia who were

financially supported by the ecclesia. This, then, is the beginning of the answer to the dilemma we

are in: to devote ourselves to the Lord Jesus, and so become "unmarried" in the sense Paul uses the

idea in 1 Corinthians 7.

"The gifts and calling of God..."

This particular sub-section I find very difficult to both understand and write about. Paul seems to be

setting a standard which for me personally seems too high. But again, in all honesty, one has no

right to interpret Scripture according to one's own level of comfortable spirituality. I openly admit

that I find the standard Paul sets almost discouraging. I would rather understand it in another way,

but in all honesty I cannot. So I resign myself to salvation by grace, and doing the best I can in

response to that grace.

"But every man hath his proper (Gk. idios, his very personal) gift of God..." is often used as the get-

out by many eager to justify marriage. They read it as if it means 'Well, if this is what you want,

OK, but if you're cut out for the single life, well OK'. But again, this would be at variance with

Paul's statement that "it is good" for all single believers to remain as himself, and that they should

only marry if they can‘t contain. Remember that Paul repeatedly urges that the single life "is better".

This would be irrelevant if somehow we are each predestined to be either single or married. There is

an element of choice implied throughout 1 Corinthians 7. This cannot be reconciled with the idea

that God has given singleness to some people, as a kind of gift of spiritual strength regardless of

their own effort.

But what does it mean, to have our own personal gift from God which affects whether we are

married or single? It must be connected with v.17, which is in the context of remaining in the

marital position we were in at conversion: "As God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath

called every one, so let him walk". The gifts are distributed at our calling. The ideas are again linked

in Rom. 11:29: "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance". This idea of us each being

given a gift at the time of our conversion goes back to the parable of Lk. 19:13, where each of us,

275

Christ's servants, are given a gift to work with. The goods of the Father are divided between the

sons, for them to use as they think best (Lk. 15:12). "The Kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling

into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods" (Mt. 25:14).

Note how the calling of the servants and the giving them the gifts / goods are connected (1). The

idea of called servants is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 7:22. We have each been given "gifts" at our

conversion. Our 'calling' is related to our situation at the time of our conversion. There is a parallel

between God distributing gifts to each of us, and Him calling us (1 Corinthians 7:17). This is to be

expected from the allusion back to the parables; the gifts are given to each of us at our conversion or

'calling'.

"Every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that" is in the

context of answering questions about whether a believing couple should abstain from sexual

relations and effectively live the single life. Paul is saying 'If at your conversion / calling you were

single, then you should continue to be single. But if you were married, you should continue a

normal married life, including sexual relations. God knows what He is doing. If He had intended

you to be single, He would have called you as single'. And the context of 7:17,19 is similar; the

question was concerning whether someone who was called to the Truth married to an unbeliever

should leave them. The answer was 'No, if it's possible to live reasonably with them'. The reason

was because: "As God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him

walk... let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called". In other words: 'If you were

called in this position, well this is what the Lord gave you, marriage to an unbeliever was the gift,

the talent, he gave you to work with; so better stay with the unbeliever and try to convert him. Then

you will have some more talents to show to your Lord when he returns'. Our marital status at the

time of conversion is being spoken of as our calling, as what we were given, one of the talents given

to us, in the language of the parable. This thought alone should make whatever situation we are in

seem less of a burden; it's part of the gifts, the talents, we were given at baptism. It's for us to work

with it. And the same applies, Paul reasons, if you were called to the Truth as a slave. Don't fret

about it, it's one of those precious talents of the parable; although naturally in that context, "if thou

mayest be made free, use it" (7:21)- note the allusion to using the talents in the parable.

The idea of abiding in the same calling in which we were called is a major theme in 1 Corinthians 7

(vv. 7, 17-20, 24,27). Paul ordained this to be accepted in all ecclesias (1 Corinthians 7:17). Yet if

we are honest, this is something we have completely overlooked as a community. Don't forget that

Paul isn't saying 'If you're called single, well you shouldn't get married'. He's saying 'If you're called

single, then it seems God intends you to give your life to the Lord, dedicate yourself to Him.

Singleness is one of the talents you've been given; so use it as God intended. But I‘m not insisting

on this'.

Eunuchs For The Kingdom

We have made the point that Paul's teaching concerning singleness here is repeating that of the

Lord. But where did Christ specifically speak about singleness? Surely it was when He spoke about

men making themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake (Mt. 19:12). The surrounding verses

concerning divorce are alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10,11. The disciples' comment " It is

not good (for single people) to marry" is picked up by Paul when he says it is "good" to be single

unto the Lord. The Lord's response to " It is not good to marry" was to say that yes they were right,

His single converts were intended to be eunuchs for the sake of the Gospel they had believed, but

the world couldn't understand what He was saying. "All men cannot receive this saying, saving they

to whom it is given" shouldn't be read as meaning that not all believers can accept singleness, only

those who God has strengthened. It should be connected with Mt. 13:11: "It is given unto you to

know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, but to them (the world) it is not given". The

believers have been given the Gospel of the Kingdom (Jn. 17:8,14), the grace (gift) of God had been

given to the Corinthians in the form of the Gospel, "the testimony of Christ" (1 Cor. 1:4,6). So "they

276

to whom it is given" are all the believers; the world can't understand Christ's teaching here, but they

(us) to whom it is given, will receive it. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" hardly

sounds like Christ saying that if His followers wanted to be serious about what He was saying, they

were welcome, but if not, not to worry. It is parallel to "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (e.g.

Mt. 11:15; 13:9,43). This is hardly giving His followers the option to take Him seriously or not.

Those who heard were His disciples (Mk. 4:24); those who didn't hear were the outside world.

"There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven's sake"

doesn't sound like Christ was referring to OT examples; "there be eunuchs...". He was commenting

on the statement that because of the likelihood that marriage wouldn't work, it was better not to

marry. He is effectively saying: the world can't understand this, but you can: those who have heard

the Gospel of the Kingdom and respond to it will be willing to make themselves eunuchs, i.e. not to

marry. Paul is alluding to this, although he makes a concession, in saying that although this is the

"commandment of the Lord" Jesus, he had permission to allow single converts to marry.

This is more radical for us, probably, than it was for the first century church. As we have said,

people married young, often for reasons other than love, and there were very few single

marriageable people. Once a man or woman was an adult, they got married; hence the lack of words

to differentiate a man from a husband; every man was married. The majority of converts in the early

church were adults, rather than children of believers. The majority of our early brethren were

therefore married.

But Today...

But today things are quite different. The majority of our converts are called single. We have shown

earlier that single people have a huge drive latent within them, which simply has to find expression.

I believe the interpretation offered above is correct. It is God's intention that those converted single

make a special commitment to devote themselves to the Lord. Therefore it was potentially possible

that a huge amount could have been achieved, both in Biblical research and preaching, by the many

single converts produced by the many converts from Christian families. But it seems we've missed

our way here. We failed to read Mt. 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 correctly. And we pushed our single

converts into family life without trying to fan their flame into yet wider and greater heights of

devotion. And perhaps now the Lord is pushing us, through the increasing failure (relatively) of

Christian family life, to re-think all this. If only a handful of single converts could seriously accept

all this, the energy that would be unleashed into our preaching would be phenomenal. We would

turn the world upside down by our preaching, as the early church did (on the admission of their

bitter enemies). We would push back the frontiers of our Bible research. How many more things

have we been blind to down the years, which are just waiting for some serious student to discover,

uninhibited by family ties, able to give him (or her)self without distraction to deep study?

The context in 1 Corinthians 7 v.7-9 is of discussing the question of whether married believers

should abstain from sexual relations. Paul is saying 'No, because you should remain in the position

you were in when you were called'. He then seems to add a parenthesis in v. 8,9: "I say therefore

(i.e. I will therefore later be telling) the unmarried and widows" that it is better to remain single,

because of this same reason- they too should stay in the marital position they were in when they

were called. This explains why when Paul starts to talk about virgins, he writes as if he is addressing

the case of single converts for the first time.

"Now concerning virgins [i.e. single converts]... I suppose therefore that this is good for the present

distress... it is good for a man so to be... art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if

thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such

shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you" (1 Corinthians 7 v.25-28)

"Such shall have trouble in the flesh" is proof enough that if single converts get married, married

life won't be a bed of roses. They were called single because that was how ideally they can serve

277

God. It was His plan that they should take the special step of devotion to the Lord. If we go against

God's plan because we seek an easier way, He allows this; but we will have trouble in the flesh. This

is a principle true not only of marriage. It may be that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor. 12:7) was a

"trouble in the flesh" as a result of realizing what God wanted through special revelations, but

failing to fully do it.

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, therefore, that both they that have wives be

as though they have none [alluding to Abraham and Isaac in time of persecution]; and they that

weep [i.e. lamenting their singleness], as though they wept not; and they that rejoice [at finding a

partner] as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy [paying the dowry], as though they

possessed not; and they that use this world / age / present time [this is what making use of the

concession for single believers to marry in the last days is] as not abusing it [the concession re.

marriage]... I would have you without carefulness [alluding to the Lord's commands not to take

'care' about the things of this life; 'I want you to be obedient to the spirit of the sermon on the

mount']. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the

Lord [not every single brother does this; this proves again that the "unmarried" refer to those who

have consciously chosen to devote themselves to the Lord]... there is a difference also between a

wife and a virgin ["difference" is the same word translated "distributed" in v.17; at the time of their

calling, God gives the gift/ talent of being married to some of His daughters, and the gift of

singleness to others]... she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please

her husband [this sounds as if Paul had in mind those whose 'distribution' at conversion had been to

be married to an unbeliever in the world]. And this I speak for your profit; not that I may cast a

snare upon you, but for that which is comely [Gk. 'beautiful'- the beauty of a life devoted to the

Lord], and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction" (1 Corinthians 7 v. 29-35).

Attending upon (Gk. 'being a servant at table of'') the Lord Jesus brings to mind Martha. Caring for

the things that belong to the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:32) alludes to Mary. And "without

distraction" uses a word which occurs elsewhere only in Lk. 10:40, concerning how Martha was

"cumbered" with her serving. The point of all this is to show that the married believer will tend

towards the Martha position, which was a position rebuked by the Lord, in favour of that of Mary.

Paul is putting before single believers the real possibility of serving the Lord practically, like

Martha, but with the undistracted devotion of Mary. The fact some sisters are called to this single

life indicates that because they have the physical anatomy necessary to produce children doesn't

necessarily mean that this is therefore God's intention for them. All too often one hears it said that

we are built to have sex and procreate, and therefore God must therefore intend marriage. But not so

in every case, says the Spirit in Paul!

"Without distraction"

There is a repeated theme throughout this discourse that the life of devoted singleness to the Lord is

"happier", "better", more 'profitable' and 'beautiful' than the married life, and that Paul's enthusiasm

for this is not a snare; trying to live this kind of life isn't a trap that will strangle you. These

descriptions will not be found true by anyone who half-heartedly thinks 'Well, I'll keep single and

be quite enthusiastic about the Truth, but as and when a likely candidate comes along, well...'- not

that I would (indeed, I couldn‟t!) despise any who think like this. But what Paul is speaking about is

a single convert who accepts their singleness is a talent to be worked with, not handed back to the

Lord in exchange for another one (i.e. marriage). Having made this recognition, they no longer care

for the things of the world, and devote themselves to pleasing Christ. There is, Paul is saying, a

freedom in this level of commitment. We have seen that Paul's teaching concerning singleness is

alluding to Christ's comment that those who were in a position to marry would be willing to make

themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. The idea of self-castration, obviously intended to

be taken figuratively by the Lord, was that once the decision was taken, there was no desire to go

back. There wasn't a problem with expressing sexual urges. Paul describes it as "standing steadfast

278

in (the) heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his

heart" (1 Corinthians 7:37). The Greek for "decreed" is normally translated to judge, to divide

between, as if the two options (marriage and deliberate singleness) have been weighed up, and a

choice consciously made. Again, those who live the single life in the hope that one day they'll marry

will not experience the blessings of the "unmarried" state which Paul speaks of. Sadly, many go

through much agony because of being in this interim state between singleness and marriage. If one

makes a judgment one way or the other, at least some of the agony is taken away; although if we

were called single, and have followed the argument so far, the choice ought to be clear.

We've seen above that there has to be expression of sexual energy. Paul seems to be saying that this

can be dissipated in the consciously chosen life of devotion to the Lord. We are pushing out into

unsailed waters here. The option of being a eunuch for the Kingdom offers, according to Paul, a

beauty, a personal profit, a great happiness, a lack of anxious care about the things of this life. And

no-one can deny this unless they have tried it! Paul is our great example in all this, one who finished

his course with joy, who could say with confidence that he had counted all as dung so that he might

win Christ his Lord.

A Little Of Both...?

But there were those who 'became eunuchs', who took this decision in their hearts, who still found

that they needed support from the opposite sex. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 are hard to interpret, but my

suggestion is that they refer to some brethren who had become " eunuchs" but had what we might

call girlfriends within the ecclesia, although they did not have intercourse with them:

"If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely [lit. not beautifully, s.w. v.35 concerning the

comely beauty of the devoted single life; it the beauty of the devoted single life is marred by your

relationship with your girlfriend..] toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age and so

require, let him do what he will... let them marry [if he feels bad about the fact that he has kept her

waiting so long that now she is too old to get married to anyone else, remembering that women

normally got married very young, then the brother should marry her]. Nevertheless he that standeth

steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in

his heart that he will keep his virgin [the Greek suggests keeping a person in a state, rather than the

brother keeping his own virginity], doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well;

but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better".

Notice that the emphasis is on the brother; the decision to marry or not was totally his. God speaks

from the perspective of the day- the woman had no say. The man is commended, it seems, if he

suppressed his own 'soft' feelings for the sister concerned, and decided to keep on with his devotion

to the Lord. "Having no necessity" uses the same word as in 1 Corinthians 7:26 concerning the

present "distress" of the last days (Lk. 21:23). There seems to be a word play here: 'You may feel a

necessity to marry, but in the necessity of the last days it's almost a necessity not to marry'. It seems

that the brethren in question had had long term relationships with these sisters but without

intercourse, and, predictably, pressures were arising- not least from the brother feeling that he had

rather 'used' the sister concerned. It may be that the same scenario is implied in 1 Corinthians 7:9:

"If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn". This suggests that the

people concerned had partners in mind, and they were trying to be eunuchs for the Kingdom whilst

also having a close relationship with the opposite sex. Paul doesn't condemn this out of hand, but

says that it's better to remain pledged to the single life, and only change if your feelings towards

your 'friend' get so out of hand it will lead you into sin.

It may be that Timothy was another brother who remained single for the sake of the Gospel, but

found it hard to carry it through. Paul exhorts him to flee the (sexual) lusts of youth (2 Tim. 2:22),

even in middle age; and in the same context he warns him to endure hardship so that he will please

Christ (2 Tim. 2:4). The only other time this idea of pleasing Christ occurs is in 1 Corinthians 7:32,

279

where the eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom is said to concentrate on pleasing Christ. The

Soncino Commentary on Ex. 33:11 likewise suggests that Joshua being described as a "young man"

devoted to the service of the tabernacle implies in Hebrew that he was an unmarried man, devoted

to the things of the Kingdom. However, it would seem that later he married. We will see that

Hezekiah was another in this category.

Great Expectations

There is evidence that "the single life was highly honoured and respected in the early church,

sometimes even going beyond the teaching of Paul" (2). Yet for us, marriage is given more respect

than singleness. The single believer is seen as somehow incomplete; there is a sense that the married

home owner in a stable job is somehow spiritually strong too. Of course, there are many unstable

single believers; but let's not judge the status of singleness by them. The experience of the next

generation may well shatter the perception that marriage is obviously the best way for any single

believer, whether or not the Biblical exposition above is accepted. I am suggesting that the Lord and

Paul are asking a very high level of commitment from us. It's so high that it seems strange to us. The

reason, I suggest, is that 21st Century Christianity and first century Christianity are very different-

in terms of commitment, not doctrine. Consider the sort of thing that was accepted as common-place

in the early church, and yet which today would be frowned upon as spiritual fanaticism:

- Converts joyfully selling all their lands and property, pooling the money, and dividing it among

the poorer members. Yet we can scarcely raise the money to pay for poorer brethren to attend a

Bible School.

- Husbands and wives regularly abstaining from sex so they could the more intensely pray and fast

for a period of several days. Surveys of Christian prayer habits reveal that on average we spend

around 10 minutes / day praying. And scarcely any fast.

- Elders who spent so much time in prayer that they had to ask others to do some practical work for

them so they could continue to give the same amount of time to prayer (Acts 6:2-4).

- Young brethren, "the messenger of the churches", who spent their lives full time running errands

in dangerous situations throughout the known world.

- Over zealous brethren (in Thessalonica) who packed up their jobs because they were so sure the

second coming was imminent.

- The expectation that the Gospel of Mark (at least) was to be memorized by all converts. Most

Christians can scarcely quote more than 50 Bible verses- after generations of Bible study in our

community.

- The assumption that all believers would make converts (1 Cor. 3:10-15).

- Widows were expected to remain single; if they remarried, this was acceptable (1 Cor. 7:39,40),

but Paul describes it as 'waxing wanton against Christ' (1 Tim. 5:11) because it was a stepping down

from the higher standard, which he defines as remaining single (1 Corinthians 7:40). This seems a

harsh attitude to us. But this is what the Spirit taught.

- Believers were regularly persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and forced to migrate long distances

unless they made what some today would consider only a tokenistic denial of their faith.

We have somehow hived off the first century church in our mind, as if to say to ourselves: 'Well,

that was them, but we're in a totally different spiritual environment'. The same mind-set occurs

when we consider the zeal of earlier believers. There is no doubt that the more we read the New

Testament, the more we will see that the level of commitment required was high indeed. The fact

many failed to rise up to it doesn't affect this. That single converts were expected to remain single

would not therefore have appeared so strange, once the spiritual context of the New Testament

church is perceived.

Notes

280

(1) The first century church saw the manifestation of this in terms of the Spirit gifts being given

(cp. 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:16; 1 Pet. 4:10); but there is a non-miraculous application too, now that the

gifts have been withdrawn.

(2) A. Cornes, Divorce And Remarriage (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1993), pp. 119, 125,126.

7:5- see on Mt. 23:25; Rom. 5:12.

Give yourselves to prayer and fasting with the passion and intensity required to perform a miracle

(Mt. 17:21 = 1 Cor. 7:5). Paul assumes that prayer will be such a major component in the lives of

married believers that they may well chose to temporarily abstain from sexual relationships in order

to find a greater intensity in prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). This speaks of quite some emphasis on prayer; not

just a few minutes at the end of each day saying often the same words.

7:9 There is a purposeful ambiguity in Paul's comment that it is better to marry than to burn due to

unlawful passions (1 Cor. 7:9). Is he referring to the burning 'fire' of judgment (e.g. Mt. 13:40), or of

burning in lust (cp. Rom. 1:27)? Surely he intends reference to both, in that burning in lust is

effectively condemning yourself, kindling the fire of condemnation yourself. David burnt in lust,

and was then smitten with a disease which he describes as his loins being filled with burning (Ps.

38:7 RV). Or consider the Jonah type. He was disobedient and left the presence of the Lord of his

own volition, and was therefore cast forth from the ship to the dark waters- in this little type of

judgment, he condemned himself. The rejected are told to depart, and yet in another sense they are

cast away (Mt. 25:30,41).

7:10- see on 1 Cor. 9:14; 15:10.

Gal. 2:20 and 1 Cor. 15:10 show Paul using the phrase ―yet not I but...‖ to differentiate between his

natural and spiritual self. Perhaps he does the same in the only other occurrence of the phrase, in 1

Cor 7:10: ―And unto the married I command, yet not I [the natural Paul], but the Lord [the man

Christ Jesus in the spiritual Paul], Let not the wife depart from her husband‖. See on Acts 23:6.

7:11 Although God joins together man and wife, He allows His work to be undone in that He

concedes to separation, even when there has been no adultery (1 Cor. 7:11). Prov. 21:9; 25:24

almost seem to encourage it, by saying that it is better for a spiritual man to dwell in a corner of the

housetop than to share a house in common (LKK koinos) with his contentious wife. The same word

occurs in Mal. 2:14 LXX in describing a man‘s wife as his ―companion‖ (koinonos).

Throughout the Spirit's teaching concerning marriage in 1 Cor. 7, there is constantly this feature of

setting an ideal standard, but accepting a lower one. This is demonstrated by the several occurrences

of the word "But..." in the passage:

- It is better not to marry: "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned" (v.28).

- The same "but and if" occurs in vv. 10,11: "Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if

she depart...". Separation is, therefore, tolerated by God as a concession to human weakness, even

though it is a way of life which inevitably involves an ongoing breach of commandments.

- It is better for widows not to remarry; but if they do, this is acceptable (1 Cor. 7:39,40; 1 Tim.

5:11)

- This same 'two standards' principle is seen elsewhere within 1 Cor. Meat offered to idols was just

ordinary meat, but Paul. like God, makes concessions for those with a weak conscience concerning

this (1 Cor. 8). See on 1 Cor. 9:12; 14:28; 12:31.

7:12 There are several indications that Paul expected his readers to understand that the majority of

what he was saying was basically a reflection of the words of the Lord Jesus. He tells Corinth that

"to the rest speak I, not the Lord" Jesus (1 Cor. 7:12). He hasn't earlier said: Now I'm going to

remind you of the words of the Lord Jesus'. He takes it as understood that as usual, his reasoning

281

has been a reflection of the words of Jesus (in the context, 1 Cor. 7:11 = Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:9; "put

asunder" is s.w. "depart"). But now he says that he is going to go beyond Christ's words (as in 1

Cor. 7:25). This doesn't mean he wasn't inspired; it means that he is drawing their attention to the

fact that he is doing something unusual for him, i.e. to give teaching which is not an allusion or

repetition of that of the Lord Jesus. My point is that the implication of this is that he expected his

readers to take as read that he normally was only repeating the thinking of Christ. Likewise in 2

Cor. 11:17: ―That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord‖ (i.e. as I normally would). Every few

verses, even according to our limited analysis, he was making a noticeable allusion to the Gospels.

When he says that he is speaking to the Thessalonians "by (in) the word of the Lord" Jesus (1 Thess.

4:15), this doesn't mean that what he was about to say was more inspired than anything else. What

he meant was that he was specifically repeating the teaching of Christ (which he does through a

series of extended allusions to Mt. 24 and 25).

7:13 The stress of Christianity on individual conversion and responsibility meant that as Jesus had

predicted, families were divided when one accepted Him. 1 Cor. 7 shows that there were times

when a wife accepted Christianity but her husband didn‘t. Yet society expected her to treat him as

her head in all religious matters. Plutarch taught that ―it is becoming for a wife to worship and know

only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tightly upon all queer rituals

and superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any

favour‖. These comments were very relevant to the many sisters who must have discreetly broken

bread alone or in small groups. One can imagine all the social and domestic conflicts that

Christianity created. This is why the movement was so slandered.

7:14 Those who come to the Faith already married have their marriage "sanctified" by God- if God

did not do this, their children would be "unclean; but now are they holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). The

implication is that God does not see marriage in the world in the same way as He sees marriage

between His children. The implication of 1 Cor. 7:14 seems to be that if a believer has a relationship

with an unbeliever, the resulting children are "unclean", illegitimate, even if they are married in the

eyes of the world. However, if the believer was married to the partner at the time of baptism, God

sanctifies the relationship, and the children are therefore "holy". If this is correct interpretation, it

follows that those who deny their covenant with God by marrying an unbeliever do not have a

marriage which is "sanctified" by God

7:17 Undersranding Corinth ecclesia as a series of house churches explains Paul‘s comment to the

Corinthians that he ordained his guidelines to be practiced in all the ecclesias (1 Cor. 7:17)- i.e. the

house churches that comprised the body of Christ in Corinth. He gives some guidelines for

behaviour that appear to contradict each other until we perceive the difference between the

commands to house groups, and commands about the ‗gathering together‘ for special breaking of

bread services. The role of women is a classic example. 1 Cor. 14:34 says that women should keep

silent ‗in ecclesia‘ [AV ―churches‖ is a mistranslation]- i.e. a sister shouldn‘t teach at those special

breaking of bread meetings when the house churches ‗came together‘ (1 Cor. 11:17,18,20) .And yet

within the house groups, it‘s apparent from other New Testament accounts and from what Paul

himself writes, that sisters did teach there (1 Cor. 11:5). Thus in the house church of Philip, there

were four women who ‗prophesied‘, i.e. spoke forth the word of God to others (Acts 21:8,9). This to

me is the only way to make sense of Corinthians- otherwise Paul appears to be contradicting

himself.

7:21 Whatever we do, doing all to the glory / praise of God, working for human masters as if we are

serving the Lord Christ. But a word of caution must be sounded here. ―If thou canst become free,

use it rather‖ (1 Cor. 7:21 RV), Paul wrote to slaves. We are inevitably tied down with the things of

this life; but if we can be made free, to serve God directly, as usefully as possible, then surely we

should seek to do this. Take early retirement. You can chose to remain at work, and of course, you

can glorify God. But you can devote your life and free time to the work of the Gospel, and bring

282

dozens to the knowledge of Christ who wouldn‘t otherwise have had it. I‘d say, and I interpret Paul

to say likewise: ―If you may be made free, then use it rather‖.

Paul wrote that slaves should abide in the callings they had when called, and not unduly seek

freedom. This has huge implications when we consider the plight of female slaves, amongst whom

the Gospel spread so significantly in the first century. They were the sexual property of their

owners, who would personally use them and sub-let them as he wished. This was all part and parcel

of being a female slave. For those women / sisters, the moral demands of the New Testament were

even harder to follow then they are now. Yet nowhere do we read of Paul insisting that those

women refuse their ‗duties‘; he teaches that they should abide in that position, and try as best they

can to live by Christian principles. That appears to me to be a concession to weakness and to the

huge difficulty those women faced. If God has so repeatedly made concessions to human weakness,

allowing us to live below the Biblical ideal of marriage, then we must in some way respond to this

in our dealings with our brethren. Somehow we must do this without infringing the need to uphold

the Truth of God's commandments.

7:21-23 We can imagine a group of believing women eagerly listening to Paul‘s latest letter being

read out in the house church. They heard of how they had been bought with the price of Christ‘s

blood, that now they were slaves of the Father and Son, that their bodies were truly not their own

but His. And in 1 Cor. 7:21-23 they would‘ve heard how Paul advised them not to be like other

slaves, always dreaming of somehow getting free, but to be content with their situation in which

they had been called, to live for the daily joy of being Christ‘s slave. They were no longer part of

the ‗household‘ of their master.

7:22 Although the majority of Corinth ecclesia were poor, there were still some in good standing

enough to be invited out to banquets in the course of their business obligations (1 Cor. 8:10; 10:27).

The slave at conversion becomes ―the Lord‘s freedman‖ and ―the free person Christ‘s slave‖ (1 Cor.

7:22). Thus this extraordinary unity between social classes was made possible through being ―in

Christ‖.

It is unfortunate that most English (and other) translations mask the real force of the Greek words

translated 'servant'; for they really mean 'bond-slave', a slave totally owned by his master, totally

obedient, totally dedicated to his service. This is the logic brought out in Rom. 6: that before

baptism, we were slaves of sin and self. After baptism, we changed masters. We didn't become free,

but we became slaves of the Lord Jesus. "He that is called, being free, is the Lord's servant / bond

slave" (1 Cor. 7:22). We cannot serve two masters; we are solely His. We are not only slaves, we

are slaves whom the Master has come to know as His friends (Jn. 15:15,20). It is a great NT theme

that we are the bond slaves of the Lord Jesus.

7:23 Are we just caught up in our daily work, slave to the corporations who employ us? 1 Cor. 7:23

begs us not to become the slaves of men, because Christ bought us with His blood. Young people

especially need to be influenced by this as they chose their career path and employers. Through the

cross of Christ, the world is crucified to us (Gal. 6:14 RV).

7:25- see on 1 Cor. 7:11.

Paul frequently remembered that his own spiritual strength was not just of himself, but a result of

God's mercy in magnifying his own efforts; he had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1

Cor.7:25); "as (i.e. because) we have received mercy, we (spiritually) faint not" (2 Cor.4:1). Even in

his decision to stay single, doubtless after enormous heartsearching, emotional tension and

conscious bruising of his very soul, Paul recognized that to some degree the strength to do this was

a spiritual gift from God: "I would that all men were even as I myself (single). But every man hath

his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that" (1 Cor.7:7).

7:26 It's clear from 1 Cor. 7 that in the very last days, the believers will be "happier" if they remain

single, because "the time is short" (1 Cor. 7:29). The problem is, deciding whether we are actually

283

in that very last period. There is good reason to think that in some ways we are; and yet there are

also some prophecies which as I write these words just don‘t seem to have had the scale of

fulfilment which their contexts suggest. "The time is short". This can't really be argued with. "It is

good for the present distress" (1 Cor. 7:26) uses the same word as in Lk. 21:23 concerning the

distress of the last days. Some of us have no hesitation in proclaiming that the time of "distress" of

Lk. 21 is upon us. But if it is, then we need to adjust our marriage attitudes accordingly. The above

statistical analysis seems proof enough that the last days are truly coming upon us; no longer is

marriage and family life working as it once did.

7:29 The Olivet prophecy spoke of the time being shortened for the elect‘s sake. And it seems this

happened- for 1 Cor. 7:29 RV says that ―the time is shortened‖. Perhaps this is why it was intended

that there be 40 years from AD33 [the crucifixion] to the destruction of the temple; but this period

was ―shortened‖ by at least 3 years ―for the elect‘s sake‖. And the situation in the 1st century is

evidently typical of ours today in these last days. They were to pray that their flight be not on the

Sabbath or in the Winter, i.e. that the abomination that made desolate would not be set up at those

times (Mt. 24:20). Clearly prayer affected the exact chronology of events and thereby the fulfilment

of prophecy.

In the context of writing about the approaching end of the age, Paul commented that because ―the

form of this world is passing away‖, therefore those who buy anything should ―be as though they

had no goods, and those who deal with this world as though they had no dealings with it‖ (1 Cor.

7:29). Of course, this was taught millennia ago by the Mosaic law of Jubilee- that whatever land you

bought wasn‘t really yours, because the land is God‘s. And again, we are not to be ―anxious‖,

because ―the Lord is at hand‖ (Phil. 4:5). And there‘s nothing like managing our ―wealth‖, however

small it may be, to make us ―anxious‖. Paul‘s not saying we shouldn‘t buy, sell or ‗deal with this

world‘. He‘s saying we should do so as if we‘re not really doing so, as if this is all an act, a

sleepwalk, something we do but our heart isn‘t in it. See on James 5:3.

7:30 We should consider what we buy as not really being possessed by us (1 Cor. 7:30). Paul

practised what he preached: although he evidently had some financial resources (Acts 24:26), he

acted and felt as if he possessed absolutely nothing (2 Cor. 6:10).

7:31- see on 1 Cor. 9:18.

7:32 Lk. 10:41 = 1 Cor. 7:32. Be aware that married life will tempt you to be more like Martha than

Mary. And Mary was the more commendable.

He encourages unmarried women to stay single so that they can devote themselves to spiritual

matters (1 Cor.7:32,34). In the surrounding Jewish culture, the unmarried woman was seen as a

reproach. In the local Greco-Roman culture, the unmarried woman would have been perceived as an

immoral woman, or one morally disgraced. Yet Paul does not imply that once those cultural

perceptions had changed, then his advice about choosing the single life should be followed.

Regardless of the surrounding perceptions, Paul spoke forth the Spirit‘s guidance.

7:39 Paul‘s teaching that remarriage could only take place after the death of the first partner (1

Cor.7:39; Rom.7:1-8) actually elevated the status of women compared to what it was in the local

culture. He can hardly be accused of being a woman hater, in the light of this; nor is he giving

commandments regarding the place of women which only fitted in with the local culture.

Immorality, particularly in terms of temple prostitution, was so widespread that it is hard for us to

appreciate the radicalness of Paul‘s insistence on absolute faithfulness to one‘s partner.

The command for widows to marry "whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39) is alluding back

to the command to Zelophehad's daughters to marry "whom they think best", but only "in" their

tribe, otherwise they would lose the inheritance (Num. 36:6,7). The implication is that those who do

284

not marry "in the Lord" will likewise lose their promised inheritance. And this rather strange

allusion indicates one more thing: the extent of the seriousness of marriage out of the Faith is only

evident to those who search Scripture deeply. As man and woman within Israel were joint heirs of

the inheritance, so man and wife are joint heirs of the inheritance of the Kingdom (1 Pet. 3:7).

8:1 Paul‘s whole position about meat offered to idols reflects the fact that he recognised that there

would be some believers who still could not escape the sense that the idol is really something to be

feared, that in some sense it is alive and accepting the sacrifice offered to it, even though the

believer in the other half of his brain knew full well that idols are nothing and there is only one true

God. We all know this, Paul reasons, and yet some still can‘t escape their sense that the idol is there,

and that if they eat meat offered to it they are fellowshipping with it, even though it doesn‘t exist.

Our tendency would be to be hard on such a person, insisting that they cannot worship the true God

and yet also have this sense of the idol. And yet Paul knew that there is a dualism within each of us;

we can still have a sense of the false even whilst we believe the true. One of the most spiritual and

doctrinally conservative sisters I ever knew once admitted to me that for many years after her

baptism, she had retained the belief that her unbelieving mother was in heaven as a departed soul,

even though she knew and taught the very opposite. And yet the Lord is more gracious than many of

us seem to be to this feature of our nature.

It is hard to piece together what was really going on in the politics of the early church, because Paul

seems to have submitted to their wishes apart from where essential principle was concerned. Luke

and Galatians 2 make the record sound so positive- as if the conference in Jerusalem solved all the

problems, even though it is clear that it didn‘t, and the Gentile believers were still classed as second

rate. Note too how Paul later wrote: ―As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all

have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth‖ (1 Cor. 8:1). This sounds like an allusion

to the agreements hammered out at Jerusalem-‗we all know what was agreed‘, Paul seems to be

saying. There was nothing wrong in itself with the compromises agreed. But it was love that edifies,

not a legalistic use of those decrees as ‗knowledge‘. It all sounds as if there was joy at the

conversion of the Gentiles, even though there was ―much disputing‖ about it. And yet it is

observable that the whole Acts record doesn‘t reflect the spirit of controversy and struggle against

apostasy which the epistles so insistently reflect. Paul didn‘t protest being told not to teach Jews by

his brethren- but he got on and did so.

8:2 "If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know" (1

Cor. 8:2) sounds like another of the allusions to Job in the New Testament- particularly once it is

realized that 1 Corinthians has several other Job allusions.

8:3 As a caveat to our rightful emphasis upon the need to correctly know doctrine about God, let's

remember 1 Cor. 8:2,3: "If one thinks he knows, he has not yet known anything as he ought to

know; but if one loves God, one is known by Him". In other words, we will never know God to

perfection in this life; but what we can be sure of and rejoice in is that He knows us. Paul almost

implies that we can easily forget this wondrous fact, because of our obsession with wanting to fully

know about Him.

8:4-6 The denarius of Tiberius which Jesus used bore the words: Tiberius CAESAR DIVI AUGusti

Filius AUGUSTUS Pontifex Maximus. Caesar was to be seen as the Son of God.The Lord Jesus was

the only, and begotten Son of God. The implication is that no other ‗son of God‘ was begotten as

Jesus was- He was the real Son of God, the one and only (Jn. 1:14,18; 3:16,18). Caesar was to be

worshipped as God (see L.R. Taylor, The Divinity Of The Roman Emperor). Julius Caesar was

known as Divus Julius after his death; indeed, many of the Caesars were held to have ‗resurrected‘

to heaven and been granted Divine status. ―To us [and this is the emphasis] there is only one God,

the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ‖ (1 Cor. 8:4-6) takes on a vital radicality in the light of this.

As does NT teaching about His resurrection and subsequent Divine glorification.

285

8:9 1 Cor. 8:9 is one of several passages which warn us not to make the weak to stumble. But none

of those passages actually says that we can know who is weak. What they are saying is that in God's

eyes, there are weak members amongst every group of believers, and therefore we should watch our

behaviour, because it will have an effect upon whoever is weak. But this doesn't mean that we

actually know who the weak ones are. Because we don't know who is especially weak we must

always be careful in our behaviour, whoever we are with. Indeed, as we'll see, we have to adopt the

perspective that in a sense we are all weak. To understand 1 Cor. 8:9, we must understand what it

means to be weak. The Greek word translated "weak" here usually means one of two things:

physical illness, or spiritual weakness. Sometimes these two senses are combined (e.g. when James

speaks of praying for the "sick" brother, or when Jesus talks of how pleased he was that brethren

had visited the "sick" brother in Mt. 25:36). Paul often uses the word in his letters to Corinth. He

says that we are all weak because of our natures (1 Cor. 15:43), and that Christ died on account of

the fact that we are weak (2 Cor. 13:4 Gk.). Because of this, Paul reasons, we're all weak, because

Christ died for every one of us. He therefore says that to sin against a weak brother is to sin against

Christ; because Christ has associated himself with our spiritual weakness, in order to save us from it

(1 Cor. 8:12). Thus he says that when we visit a weak brother (spiritually? it's the same word), we

visit him. He so closely associates himself with the weak brother. Christ on the cross carried the sins

of "the weak" (i.e. all of us), and thereby left us an example of how we should behave towards the

"weak". In this context, Paul says that we should likewise love our neighbour (in the ecclesia; Rom.

15:1-4). What he seems to be saying is that we should understand that we are all weak, and

therefore try to help each other, in the same spirit as Christ died for the weakness of each of us. If

we recognize that we are all weak, we'll avoid two common mistakes: 1) Thinking that some

brethren aren't weak and should therefore be followed blindly; and 2) Thinking that some believers

are "weak" whilst the rest of us are "strong". Paul didn't want the Corinth ecclesia to think he was

wagging the finger at them and implying: 'You lot are so weak, but I'm strong'. Several times he

speaks of his own weakness, and he glories in the fact that although he is so (spiritually) weak, God

works through him so mightily; indeed, he comes to the conclusion that God's strength is perfectly

expressed through his spiritual weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5,9,10). He says that he preached to

Corinth in the first place in (spiritual) "weakness" (1 Cor. 2:3)- because it seems that when he first

got to Corinth, he wasn't spiritually strong enough to grasp the nettle of witnessing to the city as he

should have done (Acts 18:9,10). Having admitted to Corinth that he himself was weak, he can say

that whenever one of them is weak, he feels weak too; in other words he's saying that he can totally

empathize (not just sympathize) with a weak brother's feelings (2 Cor. 11:29).

8:10- see on 1 Cor. 11:3.

Our example- and let‘s not forget, we all set an example of one sort or another- will either edify

others towards righteousness, or edify [AV ―embolden‖] our weaker brother to sin (1 Cor. 8:1,10).

We ‗edify‘ others in only one of two directions; this is the point behind Paul using the same Greek

word in both verses.

8:10- see on 1 Cor. 7:22.

8:12- see on 1 Cor. 8:9.

The idea of the materialistic steward of the house smiting the fellowservant (Mt. 24:49) is referred

to by Paul (in the Greek text) in 1 Cor. 8:12, concerning wounding the conscience of weak brethren.

Paul's vision of the latter day ecclesia was therefore that materialistic elders would act with no

thought as to their effect on the consciences of the flock, and thereby many would stumble.

8:13 while the world standeth- Paul generally respected no man's person in standing up for what he

believed was Biblical. But in the matter of meat he bent over backwards, despite arguing that Christ

had freed us from such legal restraints, "while the (Jewish) world standeth"- i. e. until the Law,

286

which was intrinsically part of the Jewish world, was fully done away with in AD70. Col. 2:22 says

that the using of the (Mosaic) laws "are to perish" - in the future, i. e. AD70.

He could have taken payment from his converts, in fact Christ had ordained that this was possible,

but Paul rejected this (1 Cor. 9:4-16); likewise he chose to be a vegetarian for the sake of not

offending others, although he himself knew that God had created animals to be eaten and enjoyed (1

Cor. 8:13). Although he himself chose the higher levels, it is a mark of his spirituality that he was

able to tolerate others who took lower levels, and (especially in Corinthians) he even makes the

offer of lower levels of attainment. He speaks as if he sometimes writes to his brethren in very

human terms, because this is the only level they are yet up to (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:32 AVmg.). He

addressed them as still on the level of milk, when they ought to have been on an altogether higher

level for their time in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1-3).

9:5 It is perhaps significant, given the theme of ‗following‘ in the records of Peter, that he became

well known for ‗leading about‘ his wife (1 Cor. 9:5), as if she followed him everywhere. Peter

translated the principles of following Christ into domestic life. There was a time when he may well

have ‗forsaken‘ his wife in order to follow Christ (Mt. 19:27-29). But further down that path of

following he came to see that as he was to follow his Lord to the end, so he was to be as the self-

crucifying Christ to her, and lead her in her following of him that she might follow Christ.

9:9 the law- see on Dt. 25:4.

9:10 Study of the word isn‘t easy, and doesn‘t always yield immediate results. Paul likens it to the

ox treading out the corn, tramping monotonously up and down (cp. in a concordance or between

passages), only slowly producing the bread of life (1 Cor. 9:10 cp. 1 Tim. 5:18). We will not see

flashing lights all the time, wonderful things don‘t just come jumping out of every page. To the

onlooker upon our Bible study, the whole procedure can look boring and pointless. But what do we

expect as mortals, seeking to understand the infinite God, searching the pages of His word to do so?

Of course there will be some dead ends, whole passages will remain closed to us. But we are oxen,

trampling out the corn. And slowly, it comes.

9:12 To 'hinder the Gospel' is the same as hindering the spiritual growth of others in 1 Cor. 9:12;

"the Gospel" is put by a figure for 'the spirituality which the doctrines of the Gospel brings forth, so

close is the link between the Gospel and the inculcation of spirituality. We must walk worthy of that

pure doctrine, in the abstract sense of doctrine, which we have received (Eph. 4:4-6). The purpose

of keeping our understanding of the basic principles clear is that this will lead to true love and faith

(1 Tim. 1:3-5).

Paul says he could have asked Corinth ecclesia to support him financially, but he chose not to. Thus

he chose the higher of two options. See on 1 Cor. 7:11.

9:13 The New Testament is very insistent that the true temple of God is the body of Christian

believers (1 Cor. 9:13; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 10:21; 1 Pet. 4:17; Rev. 3:12; 11:1,2; 1 Tim.3:15). This

string of passages is quite some emphasis. Yet Christ was the temple; he spoke of the temple of his

body (Jn. 2:19-21; Rev. 21:22). For this reason, the Gospels seem to stress the connection between

Christ and the temple (Mk.11:11,15,16,27; 12:35; 13:1,3; 14:49; Lk. 2:46; 21:38). Christ's body was

the temple of God. By being in Christ, we too are the temple (1 Cor. 3:16,17; Eph. 2:21), our body

is the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19).

1 Cor. 9:13 states that necessity or compulsion is laid upon us to preach the Gospel. This is the same

word translated "compel" in Lk. 14:23. The compulsion is laid upon us by the tragedy of human

rejection of the places Christ prepared for them, and the wonderful, so easy possibility to be there.

Significantly, this same Greek word is used elsewhere about the 'necessities' which are part of our

ministry of the Gospel (2 Cor. 6:4; 12:10). The urgency of our task will lead us into many an urgent

situation, with all the compelling needs which accompany them.

287

9:14 Paul‘s almost rabbinic respect for every word of his Lord indicates how deeply he had them in

his heart as the law of his life. He speaks of how ―The Lord [Jesus] commanded that those who

preach the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel‖ (1 Cor. 9:14 RSV). The Lord Jesus didn‘t

command this in so many words- but it‘s the implication of His teaching in Lk. 9:1-5; 10:1-12,

especially of Lk. 10:4 ―The workman deserves his food / keep‖ (Gk.). But those words of the Lord

to the disciples were understood by Paul as a command- so clearly did he appreciate that those men

following Jesus around Galilee are really us, and every word of the Lord to them is in some form a

command to us. Another example would be the way Paul states that the Lord ‗commanded‘ that the

wife is not to separate from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10). The Lord didn‘t actually state that in so

many words- but He implied it quite clearly. And so that for Paul was a command. He didn‘t reduce

the teachings of Jesus to a set of yes / no statements; rather he saw, as we should, even every

implication of the words of Jesus as a command to us. You will notice that in both these examples

from 1 Corinthians, Paul doesn‘t explicitly quote the Lord Jesus in the format in which we expect a

citation- e.g. ‗I‘m saying this, because it is known and written that Jesus said, XYZ‘. I submit that

this wasn‘t simply because the Gospels weren‘t in wide circulation when Paul was writing. Rather I

think that the indirectness of Paul‘s allusions and quotations from the words of Jesus reflect how his

mind was so full of the Lord‘s words that he doesn‘t quote from them in a formal sense, as one

usually would quote from literature or the known words of a respected person. Rather did Jesus so

live within Paul‘s consciousness, His words were so widely and deeply within the texture of his

thinking, that the allusions and quotations are made less self-consciously. 9:16,17- see on Acts

18:4,5.

Paul understood there to be a command from the Lord Jesus that those who preach the Gospel

should be supported financially by their converts (1 Cor. 9:14 RSV). But Paul chose to disobey

what he calls a ‗command‘ from the Lord- because he figured that the purposes of the Gospel would

be served better long term if he in his case didn‘t obey that command. Not only does this give an

insight into the nature of a man‘s relationship with his Lord when he knows Christ well enough; but

it indicates the huge priority placed by Paul upon the spreading of the Gospel. He would even

relegate a ‗command‘ from the Lord Jesus beneath the overall aim of spreading the Gospel. This is a

line of reasoning which is of course dangerous for us to adopt; but it indicates the priority given to

preaching. Actually one sees other examples of this in Paul- he observed Torah amongst the Jews,

but broke it amongst the Gentiles; he thus relativized obedience to Divine law for the sake of the

spreading of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:22). In fact all Paul‘s decisions in controversial matters seem to

have been made based around the ultimate question: ‗What would be best for spreading the

Gospel?‘. Perhaps the Lord was making the same point when He told His preachers to stay in their

converts‘ homes and eat whatever was out before them (Lk. 10:8), i.e. without insisting on eating

kosher food. For the Pharisees insisted that an observant Jew could not do what the Lord said- i.e.

eat ‗whatever‘ was set before them. But the Lord waived that commandment- for the sake of

spreading the Gospel. And we do well to get into his spirit as we face the many calls we do in

church life.

9:16- see on Acts 20:26.

"Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16). It may be that in these words Paul is

alluding to how the High Priest had to have bells so that "his sound may be heard... that he die not"

(Ex. 28:35; this idea of the sound being heard is picked up in Ps. 19 concerning the spread of the

Gospel). Whatever the predestined and foreknown purpose of God with Paul as a preacher may

have been, the fact still stands that the record emphasises the quite natural spirit of compulsion to

preach which arose within him.

Paul himself admits a tendency not to preach, to hold back from giving his all to fulfil that

commission he had received to testify of the Gospel of God‘s grace (1 Cor. 9:16). He asks his

288

brethren to pray that he would be able to ―make it manifest‖ more than he did (Col. 4:4 cp. Eph.

6:20).

9:17 The fact that true preaching is a carrying of the cross explains why Paul felt that the fact that to

preach what he did went right against his natural grain, was the proof that indeed a ―dispensation of

the Gospel‖ had been given to him. Likewise Jeremiah complained that the visions which he had to

preach, about violence and judgment, were quite against the grain of his sensitive soul (Jer. 46:5

RV; 47:6). There is therefore no such person as a natural preacher in the ultimate sense.

Paul says that the proof that he had been given a command to preach the Gospel was in the fact that

he preached against his own will; he says that if he did it willingly, i.e. because it coincided with his

own will, then he had his reward in this life (this is a paraphrase of 1 Cor. 9:17 and context). It

seems strange to think that Paul had to make himself preach, that he did it against his natural will.

But remember his poor eyesight, ugly physical appearance, his embarrassing early life spent

persecuting and torturing Christians - no wonder public preaching of Christ was something he had

to make himself do. It may be that the reason he went to the wilderness of Arabia after his

conversion was that he was running away from the command to preach publicly (Gal. 1:17,18).

Several times he speaks of how he fears he will lose his nerve to preach, and thereby lose his

salvation; he even asks others to pray for him that he will preach more boldly. It also needs to be

remembered that Paul was a passionate Jew; he loved his people. It seems that he "preached

circumcision" (Gal. 5:11) in the sense of being involved in actively trying to proselytize Gentiles.

But it was Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews who was called to be the apostle to the Gentiles. It

might have sounded more appropriate if preaching to the Jews was his specialism, and fisherman

Peter from half-Gentile Galilee went to the Gentiles. But no. Each man was sent against his grain.

And more than this. It seems that the Lord set up Peter, James and John as some kind of

replacement to the Scribes and rabbis. And let‘s not forget Amos, too. He defended his prophetic

ministry, as Paul defended his, by saying that it was something he had been called to quite against

his nature. He was not a prophet nor a prophet‘s son, and yet he was taking from following his flock

of sheep to be a prophet to Israel- quite against his will and inclination (Am. 7:14,15).

9:18 Paul‘s decision not to take money from Corinth (1 Cor. 9:18) was due to his deep, deep

meditation on the principle contained in Mt. 10:8; although there were other passages in the Gospels

which he knew implied that it was Christ's will that the missionary should be paid (1 Cor. 9:14 =

Mt. 10:10). This issue of payment shows how Paul based his life decisions on his understanding of

the principles of the Gospels. He did far more than learn those Gospels parrot-fashion. They were in

his heart, and influenced the direction of his life.

Paul could have taken wages from the Corinthians for his service. But on that occasion he chose

―not to use to the full my right in the gospel‖ (1 Cor. 9:18 RV); and he uses the same word in 1 Cor.

7:31, in teaching that although we have to ‗use this world‘ we are to ‗use it to the full‘ (RVmg.). As

God operates with us on different levels, accepting non-ideal situations, so we are to deal with each

other. Paul could have used his power in the Gospel more sharply than he actually did with the

Corinthians (2 Cor. 13:10)- and note how he earlier uses those two words "power" and "use" in

saying that he could have demanded financial support from them, but he chose not to use that power

/ authority which he had (1 Cor. 9:12).

9:19- see on Mt. 20:27.

Christ's words about winning men Paul applied to winning ecclesial members round to a more

spiritual and committed way of life (Mt. 18:15 = 1 Cor. 9:19-22).

When Paul speaks of how he has "made myself a servant unto all" in his preaching (1 Cor. 9:19),

there is an evident connection with his reasoning in Phil. 2:7 about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus

likewise made Himself a servant to all. For Paul, preaching was and is to be a sharing in the cross of

Christ. In his preaching of the Gospel, Paul could say that "I made myself servant unto all, that I

289

might gain the more" (1 Cor. 9:19). Yet elsewhere, Paul uses the idea of the "servant unto all" as

descriptive of Christ's attitude upon the cross (Phil. 2:7). The connection of thought reflects how

Paul understood that in seeking to gain others for Christ, we make ourselves their servants, and in

this sense our witness to them is a living out of the principles of the cross. Being such a "servant

unto all" hardly squares well with the image of arrogant platform preachers dazzling their audiences.

That isn't the preaching which truly 'gains' people for Christ.

If we can at least grasp the spirit of taking up Christ's cross, there will be a deep sense of fellowship

with others who have reached the same realization; and a deep joy and calmness in confidence of

sharing His resurrection. The cross is attainable. It‘s not just an awful thing that happened in a few

hours of history so long ago, the details of which we flinch from, excusing ourselves that it‘s just

too terrible. Look how Paul alludes to it, and arose to the point where he could truly claim to us that

he was living the crucified life. The Lord predicted in Mk. 10.44,45: "and whoever wishes to be first

among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,

and to give His life a ransom for many". And Paul alludes to this in 1 Cor. 9.19: "I have made

myself a slave to all..."; and later in 1 Cor. 10.33: "just as I also please all men in all things, not

seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved". Through his sharing

in the cross of the Lord Jesus, he, the very human Paul, became an agent in the salvation of all men.

He too became a ‗slave of all‘ after the pattern of the Lord in His time of dying. We may make

excuses about Jesus not being exactly in our position, because God was His Father etc. Valid or not,

those excuses disappear when we are faced with Paul‘s challenge.

9:20- see on 2 Cor. 11:24.

9:22 Minucius records that opposition to the Christian faith was because the believers so closely

identified themselves with the crucified Christ that His death and shame were seen as theirs: ―they

are said to be a man who was punished with death as a criminal and the fatal wood of his cross, thus

providing suitable liturgy for the depraved friends". Thus we see how deep was their appreciation of

the doctrine of representation: they saw the Lord in His time of dying as representative of

themselves. Time and again the words and actions of Paul show that both consciously and

unconsciously he was aware that he was experiencing in himself the experiences of his Lord. In his

preaching he made himself a slave of all, weak that he might gain the weak (1 Cor. 9:19,22). This is

language he elsewhere understands as appropriate to the Lord in His death (2 Cor. 13:4; Phil. 2:7 cp.

Mk. 9:35).

9:25- see on Lk. 13:24.

9:25,26 Various images are used in the Bible to bring home to us our sense of purpose. We are to

see ourselves as soldiers disciplining ourselves for action, fighting in the only ultimately worthy

cause with victory in sight; as slaves of a great Master; as athletes running a race. ―Every man that

strives in the games is temperate in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we

an incorruptible. I [Paul] therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air‖ (1

Cor. 9:25,26). Paul saw himself as very much in reality, and not just shadowing boxing. Why does

he bother saying this- that he boxes not as one who merely beats the air? Surely because he

perceived that many people don‘t grasp the ‗reality‘ of life. They think it‘s all some virtual game,

online rather than real life. But Paul saw the real issues of eternal life and eternal death very clearly.

Those who responded to his preaching and teaching really would live forever; those who rejected it

or fell away from it would ultimately remain eternally dead. Paul perceived that we are dealing with

the ultimate of all realities: the love of God, His feelings for us, His mission and purpose for us,

how every moment the King of the Cosmos is yearning for us, the life eternal, the sense of the

future men might miss. And so Paul fought for it all, not uncertainly, and not as one who feels only

half in reality. It was his life.

9:27- see on 2 Cor. 12:10.

290

It was the Jews and their ―false brethren‖ who infiltrated the ecclesias (Gal. 2:4), and who were

responsible for the deaths of many of the first century apostles and prophets. This suggests that the

circumcision party within the ecclesias was linked with the Roman and Jewish authorities, and

therefore ‗satan‘ is a term used for them all. It got beyond dirty politics in the church. This would

explain why Paul uses legal language in describing his conflicts with the Judaizing element in

Corinth: ―My defence [apologia, a technical legal term] to those [in the ecclesia] who examine me

[another legal term, anakrinein]…‖ (1 Cor. 9:27). The false teachers were taking the likes of Paul

before the civil authorities- they were hand in glove. Rev. 17 and 18 describes ‗Babylon‘ as the

system which was responsible for these deaths. Whatever other interpretation we may give these

chapters (and I would agree there is a strong similarity with the evils of the Roman Catholic

church), it cannot be denied that they are full of reference to Old Testament passages concerning

Jerusalem, the Jews, and the temple, which became a spiritual Babylon. I suggest that it was from

within the Jerusalem ecclesia, linked up as it was with the temple system and Roman authorities,

that there came much of the persecution of the early church. And this is why ‗Babylon‘ in its first

century application refers to these things.

The threat of Lk. 9:23-25 rung in his mind (in 1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 7:9; Phil. 3:8): If a man gains the

world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's words and principles in this

world, he will be cast away. Especially does Paul allude to these words in 1 Cor. 9:27: "Lest, when I

have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway". Paul recognized his temptation: to think

that his zeal for preaching excused him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our

own likely temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it will excuse us from

the cross.

The real possibility of rejection at judgment day was evidently a motivator in Paul's life (e.g. 1 Cor.

9:27), and he used "the terror" of the coming day of judgment to persuade men in his teaching of the

ecclesias (2 Cor. 5:11), and also in his preaching to the world (e.g. Acts 17:31). Paul's exposition of

judgment to come caused Felix to tremble (Acts 24:25). I don't suppose he would if he walked into

many churches today. The fact is, many will be rejected. The unforgiving believer will be delivered

to the tormentors to pay what is due (Mt. 18:34); God is preparing torture instruments for the

punishment of the rejected (Ps. 7:13). These are awesome descriptions of the self-inflicted mental

agony in which the rejected will writhe. The matchless grace of God and His eagerness for our

salvation should not be allowed to blunt the impact of these warnings- of what we can do to

ourselves, more than God doing to us. Almost certainly, some of those you know today will go

through the terrible rejection process which we are going to explore now. People from all over the

world, the living responsible, will see the sign of the Son of man, will know His return is imminent,

and wail with the knowledge that they have crucified Him afresh and must now meet Him (Mt.

24:30,31 cp. Rev. 1:7; Zech. 12:10). Our response to the certain knowledge that His return is

imminent will in effect be our judgment.

10:1 Paul told the Corinthians that he didn‘t want them to be ―ignorant‖ of the powerful

implications of the fact that they had been baptized into the Son of God, and were on their way to

His Kingdom, being in an exactly analogous situation to Israel as they walked through the

wilderness. He uses a word which is the Greek word ‗agnostic‘. He didn‘t want them to be agnostic,

to be indifferent, to shrug their shoulders, at the bitingly insistent relevance of the type to them. And

that type of Israel in the wilderness is most applicable to us, ―upon whom the ends of the ages are

come‖ (:11) than to any other generation. Indifference seems to have been a problem in Corinth as it

is for us. By contrast, God is provoke to jealousy by our indifference to Him (1 Cor. 10:22), seeing

every self-reliant act as an implicit statement that we are ―stronger than he‖. He would not have us

―ignorant‖ or agnostic about the implications of the basic doctrines we believe (1 Thess. 4:13; Rom.

1:13; 2:4; 7:1; 11:25; 1 Cor. 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13), nor ‗agnostic‘ to the fact we have been

baptized and risen with Christ (Rom. 6:3). These are all things that we are almost too familiar with;

and yet he urges us, down through the centuries, to never be indifferent and agnostic to these things.

291

Israel left Egypt, passed through the baptism of the Red Sea, and then walked through the

wilderness- all in enacted parable of our spiritual experience (1 Cor. 10:1). They then passed

through the Jordan, and set foot in the land of promise (cp. our entry to the Kingdom at the

judgment seat). But they had not been circumcised in the wilderness- possibly suggesting that the

new Israel will not have cut off the flesh as they should have done in their wilderness walk. It is

stressed at least five times in Joshua 5 that Joshua himself personally circumcised each of them, and

then they kept the Passover. This would seem to tellingly point forward to our coming to the end of

the wilderness walk of this life, and then entering into the Kingdom; to have a personal encounter

with the Lord Jesus (cp. Joshua), who performs the intensely personal operation of rolling back and

cutting off the flesh, and then we sit down together and keep the Passover, as the Lord clearly

intimated we would (Mt. 26:29). This is how personal relationships in the Kingdom of God will

be.

Israel crossing the Red Sea is one of the most well-known types of baptism / the new creation (1

Cor.10:1). They were being chased by the Egyptians, and were trapped against the sea. The only

way of escape was for that water to open and allow them to go through it. If any Israelite had

refused to go through, there would have been no salvation. Going further, it is evident that the

people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord

Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea:

Israel Abib Jesus

Ate Passover (Ex. 12:6) 14th Died on the cross as Passover lambs

slain

Left Egypt the next day (Num.

33:3) 15th

Journeyed three days (Ex. 8:27) 15th-17th Jesus three days in the tomb

Came through the Red Sea 17th Resurrected

As we come out of the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord- a new

creation. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world- all this

becomes ours. Israel were slaves in Egypt, and then after the Red Sea baptism became slaves of

God. Ps. 68:18 pictures them as a train of captives being led out of Egypt, merging into the image of

a train of a captivity led into a different captivity. Romans 6 powerfully brings home the point: we

were slaves of sin, but now are become slaves of righteousness.

Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as relevant to you personally. They were

"types of us". Note how 1 Cor. 10:1 speaks of "our fathers"- even when Paul is writing to Gentiles.

He intended them to see in the Jewish fathers a type of themselves. Israel's keeping of the Passover

implied that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that night. All down the years,

they were to treat the stranger fairly: "for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers

in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 23:9). The body of believers, the body of Christ, is not only world-wide

geographically at this point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance, to include all

those who have truly believed. This is why David found such inspiration from the history of Israel

in his own crises (e.g. Ps. 77).

10:2 In the cloud- in a sense, Israel‘s baptism was an ongoing experience, in that the cloud [of

water?] continued over them throughout the wilderness wanderings. The ongoing nature of the act

of baptism was outlined in baptism's greatest prototype: the passage of Israel through the Red Sea (1

Cor. 10:2). They were baptized into that pillar of cloud (cp. the water of baptism), but in fact the

cloud and fire which overshadowed them at their Red Sea baptism continued throughout their

wilderness journey to the Kingdom. They went "through fire and through water" (Ps. 66:12)

292

throughout their wilderness years, until they entered the promised rest (cp. the Kingdom). Likewise,

the great works of Yahweh which He showed at the time of their exodus from Egypt (cp. the world)

and baptism at the Red Sea were in essence repeated throughout their wilderness journey (Dt. 7:19).

Therefore whenever they faced discouragement and an apparent blockage to their way, they were to

remember how God had redeemed them at their baptism, and to realize that in fact His work was

still ongoing with them (Dt. 20:1). He told them in the desert that He was ―Yahweh that bringeth

you up out of the land of Egypt" (Lev. 11:45). Therefore the overcoming of Edom, Moab and the

Canaanite tribes is described in language lifted from the Red Sea record (e.g. Ex. 15:15-17).

Throughout their history, Israel were reminded that what God had done for them in their Red Sea

deliverance He was continuing to do, and therefore all their enemies would likewise perish if they

remained God's people (e.g. Is. 43:16). See on Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:6.

Bullinger comments that "they were all baptized into Moses" can be literally rendered 'they baptized

themselves'. The same verb form occurs in Luke 2:5, where Joseph went "to be taxed", literally 'to

enrol himself'.

10:4- see on Rom. 5:12.

1 Cor. 10:4 clearly states: "they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them... and that rock

was Christ". However, Dt. 32 seems to imply that the rock was an Angel. "I will publish the name

of the Lord (a reference to the Angel declaring the name in Ex. 34)... He is the rock... He found

(Israel) in a desert land... He led him" (vv. 3,4,10). This is all describing the activities of the Angel.

Israel rebelled against the Angel (Is. 63:10), "lightly esteemed the rock... of the Rock that begat thee

thou art unmindful" (Dt. 32:15,18). Another link between the rock and the Angel is in Gen. 49:24:

"The mighty God of Jacob (an Angel)... the shepherd (the Angel, Is. 63:9-11)... the stone... of

Israel". Note that Jesus is clearly the shepherd, the stone and the rock (of offence). The language of

1 Cor. 10 invites us not to interpret "the rock" just as the physical rock. It can be shown that the

Comforter was an Angel representing Christ, in fact the same Angel as in Is. 63 which led Israel

through the wilderness. It is therefore fitting that "the rock", the same Angel, should be chosen by

Paul in 1 Cor. 10 as a type of Christ. What came from the rock was "spiritual drink"- showing that

the Rock Angel spiritually as well as physically fed them. Christ's interpretation of the manna as

representing the word in John 6 would support this idea of the Angels spiritually strengthening

Israel on their journey. Ex. 29:42 implies this happened daily; the Angel stood at the door of the

tabernacle each day to speak with them. Perhaps the same is true today for those who through

Angelic help feed daily on the manna of the Word. It is possible that Israel tempting Christ in 1 Cor.

10:9 is meant to refer back to 1 Cor. 10:4 "They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and

that rock was Christ". Tempting Christ was therefore tempting the rock to produce water. The rock

was a title of the Angel that was with them, and it was he, representing Christ, whom they tempted.

See on Is. 51:9; Rev. 3:22.

The Rock That Followed Them (1 Cor. 10:4)

It should be evident enough that the rock which Moses smote in the desert was simply a rock; it

wasn't Christ personally. The Jewish book of Wisdom claimed that "the rock was Wisdom"

(Wisdom 11). Paul, as he so often does, is picking up this phrase and saying that more essentially,

the rock represented Jesus personally, and not 'Wisdom' in the Jewish misunderstanding of this

figure. It "was" Him in the sense that it represented Him. Likewise He said about the communion

wine: "This is my blood". It wasn't literally His blood; it was and is His blood only in that it

represents His blood. Paul is describing the experience of Israel in the wilderness because he saw in

it some similarities with the walk of the Corinthian believers towards God's kingdom. The whole of

1 Cor. 10 is full of such reference. And this is why he should speak about the rock which Moses

smote as a symbol of Christ. The Israelites had been baptized into Moses, just as Corinth had been

baptized into Christ; and both Israel and Corinth ate "the same spiritual food; and did all drink the

293

same spiritual drink". "Spiritual food... spiritual drink" shows that Paul saw the manna they ate and

the water they drank as spiritually symbolic- just as He saw the rock as symbolic. Paul goes on in 1

Cor. 10:16,17 to write of how Corinth also ate and drank of Christ in the breaking of bread, and in

chapter 11 he brings home the point: like Israel, we can eat and drink those symbols, "the same

spiritual meat... the same spiritual drink", having been baptized into Christ as they were into Moses,

and think that thereby we are justified to do as we like in our private lives. This is the point and

power of all this allusion. The picture of their carcasses rotting in the wilderness is exhortation

enough. Baptism and observing the 'breaking of bread' weren't enough to save Israel.

Jesus Himself had explained in John 6 how the manna represented His words and His sacrifice. He

spoke of how out of Him would come "living water", not still well water, but bubbling water fresh

from a fountain (Jn. 4:11; 7:38). And He invites His people to drink of it. It was this kind of water

that bubbled out of the smitten rock. Ps. 78:15,16,20; 105:41; Is. 48:21 describe it with a variety of

words: gushing, bursting, water running down like a high mountain stream, "flowed

abundantly".....as if the fountains of deep hidden water had burst to the surface ("as out of the great

depths", Ps. 78:15). So the Lord was saying that He was the rock, and we like Israel drinking of

what came out of Him. The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is

called "the running water"(Lev. 14:5,6,50-52; 15:18; Num. 19:17). "Running" translates a Hebrew

word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The

Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (Jn.

7:38)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (Jn. 12:28,41; 13:32;

17:1,5 cp. 21:19; Heb. 2:9). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed

from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word

used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic

passages: "...they talk to the hurt of him [Christ] whom thou hast smitten"(Ps. 69:26); "we esteemed

him [as He hung on the cross] smitten of God"(Is. 53:4). It was in a sense God who "clave the rock"

so that the waters gushed out (Ps. 78:15; Is. 48:21). "Clave" implies that the rock was literally

broken open; and in this we see a dim foreshadowing of the gaping hole in the Lord's side after the

spear thrust, as well as a more figurative image of how His life and mind were broken apart in His

final sacrifice. Yahweh, presumably represented by an Angel, stood upon [or 'above'] the rock when

Moses, on Yahweh's behalf, struck the rock. Here we see a glimpse into the nature of the Father's

relationship with the Son on the cross. He was both with the Son, identified with Him just as the

Angel stood on the rock or hovered above it as Moses struck it... and yet He also was the one who

clave that rock, which was Christ. As Abraham with Isaac was a symbol of both the Father and also

the slayer, so in our far smaller experience, the Father gives us the trials which He stands squarely

with us through. And within the wonder of His self-revelation, Yahweh repeatedly reveals Himself

as "the rock"- especially in Deuteronomy. And yet that smitten rock "was [a symbol of] Christ". On

the cross, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself". There He was the most intensely

manifested in His beloved Son. There God was spat upon, His love rejected. There we see the utter

humility and self-abnegation of the Father. And we His children must follow the same path, for the

salvation of others.

The rock "followed [better, 'accompanied'] them" (1). We must understand this as a metonymy,

whereby "the rock" is put for what came out of it, i.e. the fountain of living water. It seems that this

stream went with them on their journey. The statement that "they drank" of the rock is in the

imperfect tense, denoting continuous action- they kept on drinking of that water, it wasn't a one time

event, it continued throughout the wilderness journey. A careful reading of Ex. 17:5,6 reveals that at

Rephidim, Moses was told to "Go on before the people", to Horeb. There he struck the rock, and yet

the people drank the water in Rephidim. The water flowed a long way that day, and there is no

reason to think that it didn't flow with them all the time. The records make it clear enough that the

miraculous provision of water was in the same context as God's constant provision of food and

protection to the people (Dt. 8:15,16). The rock gave water throughout the wilderness journey (Is.

294

48:21). This would surely necessitate that the giving of water at Horeb was not a one-off solution to

a crisis. There is a word play in the Hebrew text of Is. 48:21: "He led them through the Horebs [AV

'desert places']" by making water flow from the rock. The Horeb experience was repeated for 40

years; as if the rock went on being smitten. Somehow the water from that smitten rock went with

them, fresh and bubbling as it was the first moment the rock was smitten, right through the

wilderness (2). It was living, spring water- not lying around in puddles. The water that came from

that one rock tasted as if God had opened up fresh springs and torrents in the desert (Ps. 74:15

NAS). It always tasted as if it was just gushing out of the spring; and this wonder is commented

upon by both David and Isaiah (Ps. 78:15,16,20; 105:41; Is. 48:21). It was as if the rock had just

been struck, and the water was flowing out fresh for the first time. In this miracle, God clave the

rock and there came out rivers (Hab. 3:9; Ps. 78:16,20; Is. 43:20). Each part of Israel's encampment

had the water as it were brought to their door. And so it is in our experience of Christ, and the

blessing enabled by His sacrifice. The blessings that come to us are deeply personal, and directed to

us individually. He died once, long ago, and yet the effect of His sacrifice is ever new. In our

experience, it's as if He has died and risen for us every time we obtain forgiveness, or any other

grace to help in our times of need. We live in newness of life. The cross is in that sense ongoing; He

dies and lives again for every one who comes to Him. And yet at the end of their wilderness

journey, Moses reflected that Israel had forgotten the rock that had given them birth. The water had

become such a regular feature of their lives that they forgot the rock in Horeb that it flowed from.

They forgot that 'Horeb' means 'a desolate place', and yet they had thankfully drunk of the water the

first time in Rephidim, 'the place of comfort'. We too have done the same, but the length of time we

have done so can lead us to forget the smitten rock, back there in the loneliness and desolation of

Calvary. Not only did his disciples forsake him and his mother finally go away home, but He even

felt that the Father had forsaken Him. As Abraham left alone in the Messianic "horror of great

darkness", as Isaac alone with only his Father, leaving the other men behind...so the Lord on the

cross was as a single green root grown up out of a parched desert. Let us never forget that 'Horeb';

and let's not let the abundant new life and blessing which there is in Christ become something

ordinary. God forbid that we like Corinth, like Israel, should drink of that sparkling water each week

in our 'place of comfort' and go forth to do just as we please.

Notes (1) Marvin Vincent [Vincent's Word Studies] comments: "Paul appears to recall a rabbinic tradition

that there was a well formed out of the spring in Horeb, which gathered itself up into a rock like a

swarm of bees, and followed the people for forty years; sometimes rolling itself, sometimes carried

by Miriam, and always addressed by the elders, when they encamped, with the words, ―Spring up, O

well!‖ (Num. 21:17)". Whether this is true or not, Paul is alluding to this idea- hence the rather

awkward idiom to non-Jewish readers.

(2) There is repeated emphasis in the records that the water came from the [singular] rock. However

Ps. 78:16 speaks of God cleaving the rocks. I suggest this is an intensive plural- the sense is 'the one

great rock'. The next verses (17,20) go on to speak of how the water came from a singular rock.

10:9- see on 1 Cor. 10:4.

10:10- see on Acts 7:43; Rom. 5:12.

1 Cor. 10:10 speaks of an Angel called ―the destroyer‖ who brought about Israel‘s punishments in

the wilderness. And yet Ps. 78:49 speaks of these as being executed by ―A band of Angels of evil‖

(RVmg.). Likewise Rev. 9:14 has one Angel controlling others, perhaps as our guardian Angel has

control over many others to effect his plans for us. The one Angel had control over others, Angels

specifically used to bring evil upon those whom God rejects. It may be they will be used again in

the judgment of the last day. Or it could be that ‗Angels‘ in Ps. 78:49 is an intensive plural, and the

AV reading is correct: ―by sending evil angels…‖. The one great Angel of evil is ―the destroyer‖ of

295

1 Cor. 10:10. This could imply that some of the references to a ―Satan‖ who brings disaster, as in

Job, refer to one specific Angel who does these things, or co-ordinates them.

The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, Num.

3:43). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. this would mean that given a

total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (Ex. 12:37), there should have been around

400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did Israel eat the

Passover? My suggestion- and this is well in the category of things you will never know for sure

and can only ponder- is that many Hebrew firstborns died on Passover night. Israel were warned

that if they did not properly keep the Passover, ―the Destroyer‖ Angel would kill their firstborn (Ex.

12:23). ―The Destroyer‖ is mentioned in 1 Cor. 10:10: ―Neither murmur ye, as some of them also

murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer‖ (olothreutes; this is a proper noun in the Greek).

Who was the Destroyer? If Scripture interprets Scripture, it was the ‗Destroyer‘ Angel of Passover

night. In similar vein Heb. 11:28 speaks of ―He (the Angel) that destroyed (Gk. olothreuo) the

firstborn‖.

Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 10:10 not to "murmur as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed

of the destroyer" (i. e. the destroying Angel) implies that the unworthy among the "Israel of God"

will also be destroyed by Angelic means if we make the same mistakes Israel of old made. The fact

that the Angels will personally minister the condemnation of the unworthy (Mt. 13:49 "the Angels

shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of

fire") when in their lives those Angels gave their charges every chance to repent and to grow

spiritually, preserving them from physical danger, is surely a heart rending thought; and a

motivation to respond acceptably to the trials God brings into our lives through His Angels.

10:11- see on Gal. 1:4.

Paul says that we are now at the ―ends‖ of the ―ages‖ (1 Cor. 10:11). J. Milik argues that Paul‘s

language here is alluding to Apocryphal Jewish writings, which speak of the ―ages‖ as coming to an

end in Satan‘s destruction at the last day. Paul‘s argument is that Christ‘s death has brought about

the termination of the ―ages‖ as the Jews understood them. Satan and his hordes – in the way the

Jews understood them – are right now rendered powerless and non-existent. As ever, Paul‘s

approach seems to be not to baldly state that a personal Satan doesn‘t exist, but rather to show that

even if he once did, he is now powerless and dead. The way the Lord Jesus dealt with the demons

issue is identical. Once we understand this background, we see Paul‘s writings are packed with

allusions to the Jewish ideas about the ―ages‖ ending in the Messianic Kingdom and the destruction

of Satan. Paul was correcting their interpretations – by saying that the ―ages‖ had ended in Christ‘s

death, and the things the Jewish writings claimed for the future Messianic Kingdom were in fact

already possible for those in Christ. Thus when 1 Enoch 5:7,8 speaks of ‗freedom from sin‘ coming

then, Paul applies that phrase to the experience of the Christian believer now (Rom. 6:18–22; 8:2)

[J. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon,

1976) pp. 248-259. The same phrase occurs with the same meaning in the Testament of Levi 14.1.].

The ecclesia in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) were tempted to commit the same sins in principle as we

are tempted to (1 Cor.10:1-10). Twice Paul hammers home the point: "These things were our

examples... now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and are written (i.e. the process

of inspiration became operative) for our admonition" (v.6,11). Paul seems to read the minds of

many Gentile Christians as they quietly reason 'But that was Israel- we Gentiles have been called

because we shall do better'; he warns that such an attitude places us in grave spiritual danger: "Let

him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as

is common to man" (v.12,13). This could be paraphrased as follows: 'The Jews ("man") had the

same human nature as you; if you think that you can stand up to it better than they, then such

spiritual arrogance will lead you to fall'. Such reasoning goes against the grain of what we would

naturally like to hear, which is that we will certainly reach salvation just as we are, with no

296

conditions, and without having to have any conflict with our sinful nature. Paul therefore concludes

by saying that only the spiritually wise will grasp his line of argument here: "I speak as to wise men;

judge ye what I say" (v.14).

Ensamples- Gk. tupos, types. The New Testament writers present things like the crossing of the Red

Sea and the events in the wilderness as real historical events which were types of the work of Christ

(1 Cor. 10:1-4; Hebrews 3 etc.). But by the second century, there was a shift away from reading

these events as types, but rather they were seen as allegories- no longer were the events so

importantly real, rather the characters and events were seen as allegorical. It was against this

background of ever increasing abstraction that Christians likewise started to move away from the

real Christ. Origen in the third century argued strongly that the historical sections of the Bible were

to be taken as allegory and not as literally accurate history. He spoke of there being in the Bible

"spiritual truth in historical falsehood", and went on to use this as an excuse to explain why the Lord

Jesus is presented as human rather than Divine in the Gospels. And so, as so often, an incorrect base

attitude to God's word led to seriously misunderstanding it.

10:13 Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac leaves us all shaking our heads and feeling that we

simply wouldn't have risen up to that level of sacrifice. For not only was Isaac the son Abraham had

so longed for, but he was the longed for fulfilment of the promises which had been the very core of

Abraham's life. Yet 1 Cor. 10:13 appears to allude to God's provision of another sacrifice and

thereby a way out of Abraham's temptation / testing- and this passage implies that each one of us are

in Abraham's shoes: "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted / tested (=Gen. 22:1)

beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be

able to endure it". No longer can Abraham be seen as a Sunday School figure of faith to be merely

admired. For we are in his shoes, and the same God will likewise work with us in our weaknesses,

both testing and providing the ways of escape.

Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could

bear (Gen. 4:13). This is alluded to in a telling way in 1 Cor. 10:13: for the righteous, they will

never be tested more than they can bear, but a way of escape will always be made possible. But for

the rejected, there will be no escape. It will be something too great to bear, and somehow they have

to go on existing in that state. Thus the rejected will seek death and not find it (Rev. 9:6), after the

pattern of Judas bungling his own suicide after realising his condemnation [thus his bowels gushed,

although he was attempting to hang himself]; they will also seek the Lord, all too late, and not find

Him either (Prov. 1:28; Jn. 7:34). Israel will seek their lovers / idols and not find them (Hos. 2:7),

and then seek the Lord and not find Him either (Hos. 5:6). They will seek death and not find it (Rev.

9:6), seek to their idols, see to the true God- and find none of them. They will exist in unbearable

limbo. They will wander seeking the word of the Lord, but not find it (Am. 8:12). Tragically, it was

so freely available in their lifetimes (cp. the foolish virgins seeking oil, banging on the door trying

to hear their Lord's words and speak with Him).

Put together two Bible passages: Cain felt that his condemnation was greater than he could bear,

and so God put a mark upon him so he wouldn‘t be slain (Gen. 4:13,15). Now 1 Cor. 10:13: God

will not allow us to be tested more than we can bear, but will make a way of escape so we can bear

it. I take this as meaning that if God is even sensitive to the feelings of a condemned man like Cain,

rather like putting an animal to sleep in a humane way... then we who are saved in Christ can take

comfort that even in this life, we will not be asked to bear the unbearable, and yet we have the

prospect of eternity in front of us when this life is through. And in a very quiet, sober way, we have

to respond with gratitude: ‗Wow‘.

1 Cor.10:13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man (e.g. as

experienced by the Israelites, in the context)... God... will with the temptation also make a way to

escape, that ye may be able to bear it". Escape is not always provided from physical trials-

especially in the case of those who were soon to be the Christian martyrs amongst Paul's readership.

297

But when faced with situations which make us feel that we will be spiritually swamped by the

power of our innate evil tendencies, then we can take courage that although the physical conditions

causing the trial may not be taken away, there will certainly be an opportunity made for us to resist

the spiritual temptation. Notice how a way of escape is provided- implying that initially the

temptation is truly too heavy for us, and an escape is therefore made for us by God so that He is not

in the position of forcing us to sin. Surely all readers of these words know this feeling only too well-

sensing that we are in a position where our evil desires are growing stronger and stronger, not

wanting to sin, but feeling that humanly, given a few more moments, and it will be inevitable. It is

in these moments that we have to desperately cling to this promise- that God will make a way of

escape, that he will keep us from falling (Jude 24) by His power of righteousness. Hence verse 14

continues "wherefore... flee from idolatry"- i.e. from the spiritual temptations.

10:15 When dealing with the problem of fornication, he doesn‘t appeal to any legal code, not even

the ten commandments, nor the agreement at the Council of Jerusalem, because he was appealing

for life to be lived according to the spirit rather than any law. Likewise when writing about meat

offered to idols in 1 Cor. 8, he could so easily have appealed to the agreements made at the Council

as recorded in Acts 15. But he doesn‘t. For love‘s sake he appeals. He asks them ―judge ye what I

say‖, he seeks for them to live a way of life, rather than obey isolated commandments as a burden to

be borne. It is simply so that brethren and sisters, men and women, prefer simple yes / no

commandments rather than an appeal to a way of life. In those communities and fellowships where

everything is reduced to a mere allowed / not allowed, there tends to be less internal division than if

it is taught that life must be lived by principles. Paul was smart enough to know this, especially with

his background in legalism. And yet he chose not to lay the law down with Corinth; instead he

appealed to a spirit of life, even though he must have foreseen the strife that would come of it.

10:16 Paul expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ. An example is

1 Cor. 10:16 = Mt. 26:26; hence Paul reasons: "The cup of blessing... is it not the communion of the

blood of Christ?" - i.e. 'Isn't it? I mean, this is familiar to us from the Gospels, isn't it'.

Paul speaks of "the cup of blessing which we bless" (1 Cor. 10:16), probably using "blessing" in its

Biblical sense of 'forgiveness' (e.g. Acts 3:25,26). Whilst there is, therefore, an awareness of our

own sins and salvation from them at the memorial meeting, there is not any specific mediation of

forgiveness to us through the bread and wine. In prospect, we were saved at baptism, through our

Lord's work on the cross. In prospect, all our sins were forgiven then. We must be careful to avoid

the Catholic notion that the bread and wine do themselves possess some power of atonement. They

are the appointed aids to help us remember what has already been achieved. And this is why the

early brethren could break bread with joy- not as part of a guilt trip prompted by the worrying

remembrance of the standard set for us in Jesus (Acts 2:46).

The declaration that we are in the one body is shown in terms of breaking bread together. "The cup

of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (the sign of sharing in) the blood of Christ? The

bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one

bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not

they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (1 Cor. 10:16-18). All who share in the

saving work of the Lord Jesus by true baptism into Him ought to break bread together.

Note how Paul speaks of the breaking of bread in 1 Cor. 10:16-21. He sees the bread and wine as

gifts from God to us. It‘s all about receiving the cup of the Lord, the cup which comes from Him.

We should take it with both hands. It seems so inappropriate, given this emphasis, if our focus is

rather on worrying about forbidding others in His body from reaching their hands out to partake that

same cup and bread. Way back in Gen. 14:18, the gift of bread and wine [which foreshadowed our

present memorial meetings] was a sign of God blessing us. Hence it was ―the cup of blessing‖,

which Paul says we also bless. There is a mutuality about it- we bless God, He blesses us. No part of

this wonderful and comforting arrangement depends upon us not passing that cup to our brethren.

298

The communion, the fellowship, was brought about by the Saviour‘s body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16).

Indeed, ―the fellowship‖ is a common NT phrase (e.g. 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:3). Because this has

been created in prospect, from God‘s perspective we are all united in the fellowship, therefore we

should seek to be of one mind (Phil. 2:1,2). It broke down, at least potentially, the walls which there

naturally are between men, even the most opposed, i.e. Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14). The laying

down of the Shepherd's life was so that the flock might be one, in one fold (Jn. 10:15,16). The

offering of the blood of Christ was so that He might "make in himself... one new man" (Eph. 2:15).

Thus the theme of unity dominated the Lord's mind as He prepared for His death (Jn. 17).

10:16,17- see on 1 Cor. 11:29; 1 Cor. 12:15.

To refuse to fellowship a brother is to effectively say that he is not within the Lord's body; for when

we break bread, we show that we are one bread and one body (1 Cor. 10:16,17). And as we

condemn, so we will be (Mt. 7:1). The purpose of the cross was to gather together in one all God's

children (Jn. 11:52), that the love of the Father and Son might be realized between us (Jn. 17:26). If

we support division, we are denying the essential aim of the Lord's sacrifice.

Surrounding Roman culture forbad women to drink wine with men, and only permitted them to do

so in special cases if they drank different wine from a different cup. But Paul in conscious reference

to this emphasizes the one cup shared by all believers, male and female, in memory of the unity and

tearing down of barriers between people achieved by the Lord‘s death.

10:17 ―The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being

many are one bread (Greek 'loaf'), and one body" - of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16,17). The bread represents

the body of Christ; but it is hammered home time and again in the New Testament that the believers

are the body of Christ. By partaking of Christ's body, we are sharing with each other. Paul drives

home this point with an Old Testament allusion: "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which

eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (1 Cor. 10:18). We are the living sacrifices, offered on

the Christ altar (Rom. 12:1; Heb. 13:10). By being placed upon the altar, the sacrifice was counted

as the altar. As Christ hung on the cross, all believers were counted as being in Him; Christ and the

believers were, in this sense, indivisible on the cross. And they still are- hence the figure of us being

the very body, the very being, of Christ. To personally share in fellowship with Him therefore must

involve intense fellowship with other members of Christ's body. We must 'discern' the Lord's body

(1 Cor. 11:29), and also judge (same word as 'discern') ourselves" at the memorial meeting (1 Cor.

11:31). We discern the Lord's body, and thereby discern ourselves too- because we are part of His

body. This further shows that our self-examination at the breaking of bread is both of Christ and

also of ourselves (both individually and collectively, as the body of Christ?).

10:18 The only exclusivity of the Lord's table was that it was not to be turned into a place for

worshipping pagan idols. Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian

communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?"

(1 Cor. 10:18); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (Heb. 13:10). Eating of the communion meal

was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus,

rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become

antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food",

laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (Lev. 21:6,8; 22:25; Num. 28:2; Ez. 44:7,16; Mal.

1:7,12). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; lehem panim is the

'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as sulhan panim (Num. 4:7) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This

deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread;

and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning

against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What is criticized in

later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering

sacrifice to other gods. Is. 66:3 speaks of this dualism in worship:

299

What was offered to Yahweh What was offered to other gods simultaneously

"An ox is sacrificed, a man is killed;

a lamb is slain, a dog is struck down;

an offering is brought, swine-flesh is savoured;

incense memorial is made, idols are kissed"

And the new Israel made just this same blasphemy in the way some in the Corinth ecclesia ate of the

Lord's table and also at the table of idols ["demons"]. Paul wasn't slow to bring out the similarities

when he wrote to the Corinthians. It is this kind of dualism which is so wrong; to be both Christian

and non-Christian at the same time, to mix the two. But differences of interpretation between

equally dedicated worshippers of Yahweh, or believers in Christ, were never made the basis of

condemnation.

10:21- see on 1 Cor. 11:20.

Paul speaks of us each one partaking of ―the table of the Lord‖ (1 Cor. 10:21), a phrase used in the

LXX for the altar (Ez. 44:16; Mal. 1:7,12)- the sacrifices whereof only the priests could eat. This

would have been radical thinking to a community used to priests and men delegated to take charge

of others‘ religious affairs. Hebrew 3:13 gets at this idea when we read that we are to exhort one

another not to turn away, situated as we are on the brink of the promised land, just as Moses

exhorted Israel.

The breaking of bread is described as eating at "the table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21). This was Old

Testament language for the altar (Ez. 41:22). By eating from it we are partaking of the altar, the

Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 9:13; 10:18; Heb. 13:10). If we don't partake of it, we declare ourselves to have

no part in Him. Yet the very fact we partake of it, is a statement that we have pledged ourselves to

separation from this present world; for it is not possible to eat at the Lord's table, and also that of

this world (1 Cor. 10:21). The Passover, as the prototype breaking of bread, featured bitter herbs to

remind Israel of their bitter experience in Egypt (Ex. 1:14). The breaking of bread should likewise

focus our attention on the fact that return to the world is a return to bondage and bitterness, not

freedom.

10:22 The very nature of the breaking of bread brings us to the equivalent of the Old Testament trial

of jealousy; to a T-junction in our lives. The Corinthians were told that they would ―provoke the

Lord to jealousy" by breaking bread and yet also worshipping idols (1 Cor. 10:22). This is surely an

allusion to the ―trial of jealousy" (Num. 5:24). A curse was recited and then the believer drunk a

cup; if they were unfaithful, they drunk to their condemnation. Paul‘s allusion suggests that each

day we break bread and drink the cup, we as the bride of Christ are going through the trial of

jealousy. Brutal honesty and self-examination, and not merely of our lives in the last few days, is

therefore crucial before drinking the cup.

For the new Israel in the first century, the temptation was to break bread with both the Lord Jesus

and the idols (1 Cor. 10:21,22). But there is no lack of evidence that this was actually counted as

total idol worship in God's eyes; thus the prophets consistently taught the need for wholehearted

devotion to Yahweh, and nothing else. In essence, we have the same temptation; to serve God and

mammon, to have a little of both, to be passive Christians; to flunk the challenge of the logic of

devotion. As the reality of Christ's crucifixion made Joseph and Nicodemus 'come out' in open,

100% commitment, come on them what may, so serious contemplation of the Saviour's devotion

ought to have a like effect on us. It has been well observed: ―that air of finality with which Jesus

always spoke [meant that] everything he said and did constituted a challenge to men to reach a

decisive conclusion‖.

300

10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's (spiritual) wealth" (1 Cor. 10:24)- no

matter how little we feel we have to contribute. What this means in practice is that we should be

concerned, truly concerned, for the spiritual growth of our brethren. This isn't equivalent to a spirit

of nosy observation of others' weaknesses.

10:26 The issue of meat offered to idols gives a valuable window into the extent of Divine

tolerance. Paul bases his position upon a Scripture, Ps. 24:1, ―the earth and its fullness are the

Lord‘s‖ (1 Cor. 10:25,26). On that basis, he argues that all food is acceptable to eat. But- and this is

the significant bit- he accepts that despite that clear Biblical support for his inspired position, some

Christians just can‘t handle it. And he‘s prepared to accept that. And it appears that different advice

was given to different churches on the matter; for the Lord Jesus Himself condemns eating meat

offered to idols in his letters to the churches in Rev. 2:14,15,20-25. But Paul says to other churches

that in fact it is OK to eat such meat, if you understand that idols are nothing in the world. The

advice doesn‘t contradict; rather does it reflect a sensitivity to different Christian consciences in

different areas. Both the Lord and Paul could‘ve just laid a law down from Scripture; but there is a

tolerance of the fact that despite clear Biblical support, not all believers are mature enough to accept

it.

10:27 ―Eat whatever is set before you‖ (1 Cor. 10:27 RSV) echoes the Lord‘s words: ―Eat whatever

is set before you‖ (Lk. 10:8 RSV). I see no semantic connection between the two passages; so I

conclude this is purely an unconscious allusion to the Lord whose words were ever in Paul‘s mind.

Paul seems to have foreseen the tendency to leave the work of preaching to a few 'specialists'

within the ecclesia. He tells every and any believer who is invited out to lunch with a non-believer

to eat what is set before them; and yet in this piece of advice Paul is quoting the Lord's command to

His seventy preachers (1 Cor. 10:27 cp. Lk. 10:8). Surely Paul's point was: 'You're all preachers,

just like those seventy specially commissioned preachers, and in your everyday contact with the

world, you too have a special commission to preach as they did'.

1 Cor. 10:25-27 and Rom. 14 certainly do give the impression that Paul either ignored or severely

modified the prohibitions agreed upon in Acts 15, especially in relation to eating blood (unless the

Acts 15 decrees were only relevant to "Antioch, Syria and Cilicia"). Perhaps with later reflection he

realized he had compromised too far; or, more likely, he re-interpreted the decrees and sought to

keep the spirit of them, which was that there should be unity between Jewish and Gentile believers.

10:33- see on 1 Cor. 4:16.

In the same way as the Lord Jesus came to seek and to save, so Paul appropriates the same two

Greek words regarding his seeking and saving of others (Lk. 19:10; 1 Cor. 10:33). In 1 Cor. 10:33;

11:1 he bids us follow his example in that he lived a life dominated by seeking to save others- both

in and out of the ecclesia [see context]. This may explain why there is little direct encouragement in

Paul‘s letters to preach; not only was his pattern axiomatically an imperative to live a life devoted to

witness, but the following of Christ as he did inevitably issued in a life of witness.

11:1 Paul's relationship with and perception of the Lord Jesus is held up by the Spirit as our

example. He himself asks us to copy (Gk. mimic) the way in which he followed the Lord Jesus (this

is what 1 Cor. 11:1 implies in the Greek). His mind was increasingly saturated with the Gospels,

and with the surpassing excellency and supremacy of the Lordship of the risen Jesus.

The idea of consciously modelling, of having some characters as your heroes, your inspiration

towards a closer following of God, was very much in Paul's thinking. Not only does he do it

himself, but he encourages others to do it. He doesn't use the word 'modelling'; he uses the word

'mimicking', Greek 'mimicos', normally translated " follow" in the AV. This Greek word is used

almost exclusively by Paul:

"Ye became followers of us and of the Lord....ye know how ye ought to follow us...an ensample

unto you to follow us" (1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7,9; the implication is that in the gap between 1 and

301

2 Thessalonians, they stopped following Paul as they initially did straight after his conversion of

them).

"Be ye followers of me" (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1)

"Whose faith follow (i.e. that of your ecclesial elders)" (Heb. 13:7)

Be "followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises", e.g. Abraham (Heb.

6:12)

"Ye, brethren, became followers of the churches... in Judea" (1 Thess. 2:14).

So Paul encourages them to mimic him, to mimic Abraham, to mimic the persecuted ecclesias in

Judea, to mimic the faithful elders in the Jerusalem ecclesia (e.g. Peter), so that they would be better

mimickers of the Father and Son. But the idea of mimicking involves a child-likeness, an

intellectual humility, a truly open mind. Why Paul used that word rather than a word which simply

meant 'to copy' or 'to follow' was perhaps because he wanted to stress that this kind of conscious

modelling of your life on someone else involved a real need for openness of mind to the word,

resulting in an unfeigned, uncontrived, child-like mimicking. Paul is really encouraging his readers

to get involved in this 'mimicking' of faithful examples, of absorbing their spirit into our own by

careful, sustained meditation. Will we rise up to it? Or are we still on the level of whizzing through

our Bible reading in 10 minutes / day, giving little thought to what we've read throughout the next

24 hours?

"Give none offence (i.e. cause of spiritual stumbling), neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to

the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit

of many that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me (in this), even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor.

10:31-11:1; the chapter division is wrong). Paul saw that if he gave offence, he was not seeking

their salvation. Like Paul, the Lord Jesus didn't please Himself by being selfishly concerned with

His own salvation, but pleased his neighbours for their good unto their eternal edification (Rom.

15:2,3).

11:2 It was expected that the disciples of rabbis memorized their teaching, and there's no reason to

doubt that the Lord's disciples, both those who immediately heard Him and those who subsequently

became disciples of their invisible Heavenly rabbi, would likewise have memorized the gospel

records of His words. This would account for the way they are arranged [Mark especially] as series

of 'pericopes', small bite-sized sections which lend themselves to memorization. This would explain

how Paul can use technical terms for handing on a tradition (paradidomi, 1 Cor. 11:2,23) and

receiving it (paralambano, 1 Cor. 15:1,3; Gal. 1:19; Col. 2:6; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6); and

of faithfully retaining the tradition (katecho, 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2; krateo, 2 Thess. 2:15); matched

perhaps by John's insistence in his letters that the converts retain that teaching which they received

"from the beginning".

11:3 The head of ―every man is Christ‖ only in the sense that ―every [believing] man‖ has this

relationship with Him. ―Every man‖ to God is therefore those in Christ. ―All‖ shall be made alive at

the Lord‘s return- i.e. all ―that are Christ‘s‖ (1 Cor. 15:22,23). "All things" is a title of the church in

Ephesians and Colossians, and "any man" evidently means 'any believer' in 1 Cor. 8:10. ―All men...

every man‖ means ‗all that believed‘ in Acts 2:44,45.

11:5- see on 1 Cor. 6:4.

11:7 When we read that humanity is the "image and glory of God" (1 Cor. 11:7), it seems to me that

Paul is stating something which is only potentially true- for he elsewhere says that we must be

transformed into the image of God (2 Cor. 3:18), speaking of a progressive renewal in knowledge

until we come to the image of our creator (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18). This kind of approach

is common in Paul- he speaks of a state of being which we should rise up to, as if we already have

it. He's surely inspiring us to rise up to our potential.

11:10- see on Acts 18:18.

302

The command for sisters to wear hats at ecclesial meetings was "because of the Angels" (1 Cor.

11:10)- because of the physical presence of the Angels there? It seems that great stress is placed in

Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven

and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing

things about by just willing them to happen. See on Gen. 18:10.

11:14- see on Jn. 16:2.

11:16- see on Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 14:38.

The ideal is for a sister to have long hair; but Paul admits, "we have no such custom, neither the

churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16), as if to regretfully say: 'This is the ideal, but as you know, there is

sadly no tradition of this among the ecclesias'.

In I Cor. 11:15,16, Paul speaks about the appropriacy of sisters in Christ having long hair, but he

goes on to say: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the

churches of God". This is admittedly difficult to understand. My suggestion is that Paul is saying:

'The ideal is for a sister to grow her hair long. But I know that once you start saying this kind of

thing, some will start getting contentious (and times don't change!). So, OK, I admit, there isn't such

a custom in the ecclesias, although ideally I think there should be, so if it's going to cause such

argument, OK drop the issue. But for sisters to have long hair is the highest level'.

11:17- see on 1 Cor. 7:17.

11:18 Corinth ecclesia had cases of gross immorality, even incest; some got drunk at the memorial

meeting, and some even denied Christ's resurrection. There can be no question that such belief and

practice was not ultimately tolerated either by Paul or God. Yet notice the first thing which the

Spirit 'takes up' with Corinth. It wasn't any of these more obvious things. It was the fact there was a

spirit of factionism within the ecclesia. Paul repeats this emphasis in 1 Cor. 11:18, where in the

context of rebuking them for drunkenness at the memorial meeting, Paul emphasizes that first of all

(i.e. most importantly, Gk.), there are divisions among them (1 Cor. 11:18). This is also what the

epistles conclude with (2 Cor. 13:11); Paul doesn't tell them 'Now don't forget what I said about

adultery and having concord with Belial'. Instead: "Finally, brethren... be of one mind, live in

peace".

11:19 Causing division within the body is therefore a sin which may exclude us from the Kingdom

(1 Cor. 11:19 alludes Mt. 18:7).

11:20 Our breaking of bread is far far more than just religious ritual, although on one level it is that.

But we must rise well above this. Israel kept the Passover (cp. the breaking of bread), and yet to

God they never really kept it. The Corinthians took the cup of the Lord and that of the idols; they

broke bread with both (1 Cor. 10:21). But they were told they could not do this. They took the cup

of the Lord; but not in the Lord‘s eyes. They ate the Lord‘s supper; but they had to be told that they

were not really eating it (1 Cor. 11:20). They turned His supper into their own supper. They did it,

but for themselves. And so in spiritual terms, they didn‘t do it (1 Cor. 11:20.21). Just as the ―Lord‘s

passover" became by the time of the NT ―the feast of the Jews". They turned His Passover into their

own. Likewise they turned the house of God into their own house (Mt. 23:38); and the Lord called

the law of God through Moses as now ―their law" (Jn. 15:25). And so we must just accept the real

possibility that we can break bread on the surface, but not break bread. We‘ve probably all done

this. Don‘t let it become the norm. Likewise Israel had to be asked the rhetorical question: ―Have ye

offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years?" (Am. 5:25). Because they

also worshipped Molech, their keeping of the feasts wasn‘t accepted. So I can ask again: Do you

really break bread?

The Corinthians went through the motions of the breaking of bread; but they were told that in

spiritual reality, they weren't doing it at all: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is

303

not to eat the Lord's supper" (1 Cor. 11:20)- although externally, that was what they were doing.

They drunk the cup of the Lord and also that of idols (10;21)- but in reality, they didn‘t drink the

Lord‘s exclusive cup of grace. Israel kept their Passovers throughout the wilderness years, one

would assume- but they never remembered the day that God brought them out of Egypt (Ps. 78:42)-

although notice how although Israel didn't remember God, yet He remembered them in His grace

(Ps. 106:7, 45).

11:22 The combined breaking of bread meeting, in Paul‘s view, wasn‘t the time to indulge in a huge

party, with all the emphasis upon eating and drinking your own food and wine, rather than focusing

upon that which God had provided in Jesus. Hence he comments: ―Have you not houses to eat and

to drink in?‖ (1 Cor. 11:22). Given almost every reference to ‗house‘ in Corinthians is to a house

church or to the spiritual house of God, it would seem Paul‘s idea is: ‗It‘s OK to eat and drink and

have a collective meal etc. in your house church meetings. But don‘t do that when you all meet

together for the breaking of bread- it‘s getting divisive, because of the social differences between

the house groups which are made apparent by the choice of food and drink‘. They were to ‗discern

the body of the Lord Jesus‘ at those gatherings- i.e. recognize that all of them gathered there, the

various house churches of Corinth, were in fact the collective body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:29). If

anyone was hungry and therefore in need of material support, the combined breaking of bread

meeting wasn‘t the place to raise the issue- he should ―eat at home‖, i.e. take food and support from

his local house church (1 Cor. 11:34). That‘s surely a more reasonable reading, for at face value it

would seem the hungry brother lacking food is being heartlessly told ‗Well go home and eat!‘.

To not offend others, to seek to save them, means that we will not despise them. 1 Cor. 11:22

accuses some brethren of despising others [s.w. Mt. 18:10] in the ecclesia by ―shaming‖ them. If we

perceive the value of persons, the meaning of others personhood, we will not shame them in our

words, gestures, body language or actions. No ―shameful speaking‖ should proceed out of our

mouths (Col. 3:8 RV). Of course, the true believer in Christ cannot be ashamed- for whilst some

stumble on Christ, the rock of offence, the believer in Him will not be shamed (Rom. 9:33; 10:11-

s.w. 1 Cor. 11:22). For his or her sure hope of the Kingdom ―maketh not [to be] ashamed‖ (Rom.

5:5). Again, if our hope of the Kingdom is real to us, nobody will make us ashamed, will in reality

make us feel despised, or make us stumble. The reality ahead will transfix us so that all human

unkindness toward us gains no permanent lodgment in our hearts. We do well to review our way of

talking and acting to ensure we do not shame others.

11:23- see on 1 Cor. 11:2.

1 Cor. 11:23 associates the themes of betrayal and the breaking of bread- and John quotes the

prophecy that ―He who feeds on bread with me has raised his heel against me" in the context of

Judas breaking bread with Jesus. ―Is it I?" must be a dominant part of the breaking of bread

experience.

11:24- see on Jn. 6:51.

Paul's comment that as often as we take the bread and wine we "shew the Lord's death till he come"

(1 Cor. 11:24) is surely an allusion, but not a quotation, to the Lord's comment that He would not

take the cup again until He returns (Mk. 14:25).

Paul saw the breaking of bread prefigured in Christ's feeding of the 4000 (Mt. 15:36 = 1 Cor.

11:24).

‗Broken‘ can imply divided and shared out. The gruesome record of the Levite cutting up his wife‘s

body and sending parts of the body throughout all Israel has much to teach us of the power of the

memorial service. It was done so that all who received the parts of that broken body would ―take

advice and speak [their] minds" (Jud. 19:30). It was designed to elicit the declaration of their hearts,

and above all to provoke to concrete action. Splitting up a body and sharing it with all Israel was

304

clearly a type of the breaking of bread, where in symbol, the same happens. Consider some

background, all of which points forward to the Lord‘s sufferings:

- The person whose body was divided up was from Bethlehem, and of the tribe of Judah (Jud. 19:1)

- They were ‗slain‘ by permission of a priest

- They were dragged to death by a wicked Jewish mob

- They were ―brought forth" to the people just as the Lord was to the crowd (Jud. 19:25)

- ―Do what seemeth good unto you" (Jud. 19:24) is very much Pilate language

- A man sought to dissuade the crowd from their purpose- again, as Pilate.

There should be a like effect upon us as we receive the emblems of the Lord‘s ‗broken body‘- the

inner thoughts of our hearts are elicited, and we are provoked to action.

Broken Body?

Considering how the bread represents the body of Christ leads us to a common query: 'Seeing that

"a bone of Him shall not be (and was not) broken‖, how can we say that we remember the broken

body of Jesus by breaking the bread?'. First of all, it must be understood that 'breaking bread' or

'eating bread' is simply an idiom for sharing in a meal (Is. 58:7; Jer. 16:7; Lam. 4:4; Ez. 17:7; 24:17;

Hos. 9:4; Dt. 26:14; Job 42:11). 'Bread' is used for any food, just as 'salt' is used in the same way in

Arabic. The breaking of a loaf of bread is not necessarily implicit in the phrase (although it can be).

However, we must also be aware of a fundamental misconception which one feels is held by many;

that the physical blood and body of Christ are all that we come to remember. This notion is related

to that which feels that there is some mystical power in the physical bread and wine in themselves.

Robert Roberts makes the point in "The Blood of Christ" that "it is not the blood as literal blood that

is precious or efficacious". And the same might be said about the Lord's literal body. His body and

blood were no different to those of any other man.

The fact that we are asked to symbolize His broken body, when it is stated that His literal body was

not broken, is proof enough that Christ's body is to be understood as something more than His literal

flesh and blood. Indeed, 1 Cor. 10:16,17 seems to suggest that the "body of Christ" in which we

partake through the bread is a symbol of the whole body of believers, just as much as His actual

body which enabled this salvation. Likewise the Passover was not intended to commemorate the red

liquid which flowed from the first Passover lambs, but to remember the salvation which God had

achieved for all Israel on account of that. Christ bore our sins "in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet.

2:24)- and it was more in His mind and mental awareness that this was true, rather than our sins

being in (e.g.) His arms and legs. Other uses of " body" which require reference to our whole mind

and being, rather than our literal body, include Mt. 5:29,30; 6:22-25; Jn. 2:21; Rom. 7:4; 1 Cor.

6:19; 9:23. Luke's record of the Last Supper shows how the Lord spoke of His body and blood as

parallel with His whole sacrifice: "This is my body... this do in remembrance of me (His whole way

of life- not just His physical body). This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for

you" (Lk. 22:19,20). Col. 1:20 likewise parallels ―the blood of the cross" with ―him" (the man

Jesus). Rom. 7:4 puts ―the body of Christ" for the death of that body; He was, in His very person,

His death. The cross was a living out of a spirit of self-giving which was Him. The cup of wine

represents the promises ("testament") of salvation which have been confirmed by Christ's blood.

Note how Jesus quietly spoke of "my body which is (being) given for you... my blood which is shed

for you". The pouring out of His life/blood was something ongoing, which was occurring even as

He spoke those words. The cross was a summation of a lifetime of outpouring and breaking of His

innermost being, or "body". It is this that we remember at the breaking of bread. The Passover was

comprised of the lamb plus bread. The breaking of bread, the Passover for Christians, is wine and

bread. The lamb was thus replaced in the thought of Jesus by His blood / wine. He perceived that

His blood was Him, in that sense.

305

It is also worth reflecting how the Hebrew writer saw the torn veil as a symbol of the Lord‘s flesh. It

is just possible that the physical tearing of the Lord‘s flesh at His death through the nails represented

the tearing of His flesh nature, symbolized in the physical tearing of the veil. But the tearing of the

veil was something essential and far reaching- not a surface rip. The Lord‘s death is surely to be

understood as a tearing apart of the flesh nature and tendencies which He bore; and it is this we

remember in breaking the bread which represents His flesh. Note that to break the bread in a place

was an idiom for breaking the life there (Ez. 4:16; 5:16; 14:13; Lev. 26:26). This was what the Lord

asks us to remember- not the physical breaking of His body, but the breaking of His life for us and

sharing it with us (Is. 58:7).

11:25 The breaking of bread brings us before the cross, which is in a sense our judgment seat. There

can only be two exits from the Lord‘s throne, to the right or to the left, and likewise we are faced

with such a choice in our response to the bread and wine. The cup of wine is a double symbol-

either of blessing (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:25), or of condemnation (Ps. 60:3; 75:8; Is. 51:17; Jer. 25:15;

Rev. 14:10; 16:19). The very structure of the Hebrew language reflects this. Thus the Hebrew

‗baruch‘ means both ‗blessed‘ and ‗cursed‘; ‗kedoshim‘ means both ‗Sodomites‘ and ‗saints‘. Why

this use of a double symbol? Surely the Lord designed this sacrament in order to highlight the two

ways which are placed before us by taking that cup: it is either to our blessing, or to our

condemnation. Each breaking of bread is a further stage along one of those two roads. Indeed, the

Lord‘s supper is a place to which the rejected are invited (Zeph. 1:7,8; Rev. 19:7), or the redeemed

(Rev. 3:20). Like the cup of wine, being invited to the Lord‘s supper is a double symbol. And there

is no escape by simply not breaking bread. The peace offering was one of the many antecedents of

the memorial meeting. Once the offerer had dedicated himself to making it, he was condemned if he

didn't then do it, and yet also condemned if he ate it unclean (Lev. 7:18,20). So a man had to either

cleanse himself, or be condemned. There was no get out, no third road. The man who ate the holy

things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his

sins (Lev. 22:3,16 AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of ―eating... condemnation"

to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. And so it is with us as we

face the emblems. We must do it, or we deny our covenant relationship. And yet if we do it in our

uncleanness, we also deny that relationship.

11:26 The most evident link between the breaking of bread and the judgment / second coming is in

the fact we are to do it ―until he come". The Jews expected Messiah to come at Passover, and the

Lord seems to have plugged into that fact. ‗Until he come‘ was an allusion by Paul to the

contemporary Passover prayer for the coming of Messiah at the Passover meal: ―May the Lord

come and this world pass away. Amen. Hosanna to the house of David. If any man is holy, let him

come; if any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen". Joachim Jeremias translates the phrase:

―‘Until (matters have developed to the point at which) he comes‘, ‗until (the goal is reached, that) he

comes‘". He points out a similar construction in other passages relevant to the second coming (Lk.

21:24; 1 Cor. 15:25; Rom. 11:25). Thus each memorial meeting brings us a step closer towards the

final coming of Jesus. It would therefore be so appropriate if the Lord did return during a breaking

of bread. One day, the foretaste of judgment which we experience then will be, in reality, our final

judgment. As we break bread, each time we are ‗reminding‘ the Father as well as ourselves of His

Son‘s work and the need to climax it in sending Him back.

1 Cor. 11:26 AVmg. makes the act of breaking bread a command, an imperative to action: ―As often

as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye the Lord‘s death, till he come". If we are going to

eat the emblems, it is axiomatic that we will commit ourselves to shewing forth His death to the

world, like Paul placarding forth Christ crucified in our lives (Gal. 3:1 Gk.). The Passover likewise

had been a ‗shewing‘ to one‘s family ―that which the Lord did unto me" (Ex. 13:8), the redemption

we have experienced.

306

The description of the memorial service as being a 'proclamation' of the Lord's death (1 Cor. 11:26

RV) is an allusion to the second of the four cups taken at the Jewish Passover: "the cup of

proclamation". This was drunk after the reading of Psalms 113 and 114, which proclaimed

Yahweh's deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Therefore our breaking bread is our proclamation that

we really believe that we have been saved out of this world, and are on the wilderness path to the

Kingdom. God forbid, really, that our breaking bread should come down to mere ritual and habit. It

is a very personal proclamation of our own salvation- as well as that of the whole body of believers.

11:28

Joseph's Cup Of Divination

The Hebrew for ―divineth" means literally ‗to make trial‘; their taking of the cup was their trial /

judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word

used by the LXX for ―divineth" in Gen. 44:5 occurs in the NT account of the breaking of bread

service: ‗everyone should examine himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup‘ (1 Cor.

11:28). The Lord examines us, as we examine ourselves. There is a mutuality here- the spirit of man

is truly the candle of the Lord (Prov. 20:27). He searches us through our own self-examination. He

knows all things, but there may still be methods that He uses to gather than information. Our hearts

are revealed to God through our own self-examination. And is it mere co-incidence that the Hebrew

words for ―divination" and ―snake" are virtually identical [nahash]? The snake lifted up on the pole

[cp. the crucified Jesus] is the means of trial / divination. Through the cross, the thoughts of many

hearts are revealed (Lk. 2:35), just as they will be at the last day. Thus the breaking of bread

ceremony is a means towards the sort of realistic self-examination which we find so hard to achieve

in normal life.

The whole story of Joseph is one of the clearest types of Jesus in the Old Testament. The way His

brethren come before His throne and are graciously accepted is one of the most gripping foretastes

we have of the final judgment. The rather strange way Joseph behaves towards them was surely to

elicit within them a true repentance. He sought to bring them to self-knowledge through His cup.

Joseph stresses to the brethren that it is through his cup that he ―divines" to find out their sin. He

also emphasizes that by stealing the cup they had ―done evil" (Gen. 44:4,5). And yet they didn‘t

actually steal the cup. The ―evil" which they had done was to sell him into Egypt (Gen. 50:20).

They had ―stolen" him (Gen. 40:15) in the same way they had ―stolen" the cup. This is why he says

that ―ye" (you plural, not singular, as it would have been if he was referring merely to Benjamin‘s

supposed theft) had stolen it (Gen. 44:15). And the brethren in their consciences understood what

Joseph was getting at- for instead of insisting that they hadn‘t stolen the cup, they admit: ―What

shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found

out the iniquity of thy servants" (Gen. 44:16). Clearly their minds were on their treatment of Joseph,

the sin which they had thought would not be found out. And this was why they were all willing to

bear the punishment of becoming bondmen, rather than reasoning that since Benjamin had

apparently committed the crime, well he alone must be punished. The cup was ―found" and they

realized that God had ―found out" their joint iniquity (Gen. 44:10,12,16). The cup was perceived by

them as their ―iniquity" with Joseph. They had used the very same Hebrew words years before, in

telling Jacob of Joseph‘s garment: ―This have we found…" (Gen. 37:32).

The cup made them realize their guilt and made them acceptive of the judgment they deserved. And

it made them quit their attempts at parading their own righteousness, no matter how valid it was in

the immediate context (Gen. 44:8). The cup made them realize their real status, and not just use

empty words. Behold the contradiction in Gen. 44:9: ―With whomsoever of thy servants it be found,

both let him die, and we also will be my Lord‘s bondmen / servants". The Hebrew words translated

―servants" and ―bondmen" are the same. Their mere formal recognition that they were Joseph‘s

servants was to be translated into reality. Thus they say that Joseph had ―found out the iniquity of

307

thy servants; behold, we are my Lord‘s servants". Describing themselves as His servants had been a

mere formalism; now they wanted it in a meaningful reality. And the Lord‘s cup can do the same to

us. The way they were ―searched" (Gen. 44:12) from the oldest to the youngest was surely the

background for how the guilty men pined away in guilt from the Lord, from the eldest to the

youngest. The whole experience would have elicited self-knowledge within them. The same word is

found in Zech. 1:12, describing how God Himself would search out the sin of Jerusalem.

Joseph was trying to tell them: ‗What you did to the cup, you did to me. That cup is a symbol of

me‘. And inevitably the mind flies to how the Lord solemnly took the cup and said that this was

Him. Our attitude to those emblems is our attitude to Him. We have perhaps over-reacted against

the Roman Catholic view that the wine turns into the very blood of Jesus. It doesn‘t, of course, but

all the same the Lord did say that the wine is His blood, the bread is His body. Those emblems are

effectively Him to us. They are symbols, but not mere symbols. If we take them with indifference,

with minds focused on externalities, then this is our essential attitude to Him personally. This is why

the memorial meeting ought to have an appropriate intensity about it- for it is a personal meeting

with Jesus. ―Here O my Lord, I see thee face to face". If it is indeed this, then the cup will be the

means of eliciting within us our own realization of sin and subsequently, of our salvation in Jesus.

Joseph‘s brothers‘ words are exactly those of Daniel in Dan. 10:15-17, where in another death and

resurrection experience, he feels just the same as he lays prostrate before the Angel. Our attitude to

the Lord in the last day will be our attitude to Him at the breaking of bread- just as our ―boldness" in

prayer now will be our ―boldness" in the day of judgment. In the same way as the brothers had to be

reassured by Joseph of his loving acceptance, so the Lord will have to ‗make us‘ sit down with Him,

and encourage us to enter into His joy. There will be some sort of disbelief at the extent of His grace

in all those who are truly acceptable with Him (―When saw we thee…?"). The brothers grieved and

were angry with themselves in the judgment presence of Joseph (Gen. 45:5)- they went through the

very feelings of the rejected (cp. ―weeping and gnashing of teeth" in self-hatred). And yet they were

graciously accepted, until like Daniel they can eventually freely talk with their saviour Lord (Gen.

45:15). And so the sheep will feel rejected at the judgment, they will condemn themselves- in order

to be saved ultimately. The same words occur in Neh. 8:10,11, when a repentant Israel standing

before the judgment bema (LXX) are given the same assurance.

11:29 1 Cor. 11:29 invites us to discern the Lord‘s body at the memorial meeting. The same word

occurs in v.28: ―let a man examine himself". It‘s too bad that the translations mask this connection.

We are to examine / discern the Lord‘s body, and to do the same to ourselves. The two are

inextricably related. Meditation upon and analysis of His body will lead to self examination and

discernment. In this lies the answer to the frequent question: ‗What should we examine at the

breaking of bread? Our own sins, or the facts of the crucifixion / resurrection?‘. If we think about

the latter, we will inevitably be led to think of the former. In the Corinthian context, the body of

Christ is to be understood as the ecclesia. 1 Cor. 12 is full of this figure. The need to discern the

Lord‘s body at the breaking of bread means that we must go beyond reflection upon His physical

body. We must recognise / discern His ecclesia too. The immediate context of 1 Cor. 11 is of

unbrotherly behaviour at the memorial meeting. If we fail to recognise / appreciate / discern the

Lord‘s physical body, we will fail to recognise His brethren. And if we do this, we have made

ourselves guilty of His body and blood, we have crucified Him again. This is why I plead with those

who use the breaking of bread as a weapon for division within the Lord‘s body to think again. The

body which we must discern at the breaking of bread evidently has some reference to the ecclesia.

We thereby place ourselves in a dangerous position by refusing to share the emblems with others in

the body, and disfellowshipping those who do so.

Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor. 10-12 seems to be specifically in the context of the memorial meeting.

The issue he addresses is that of disunity at the Lord's table- different groups were excluding others.

It is in this context that he urges believers to "discern the Lord's body" (1 Cor. 11:29)- and the

308

Lord's body he has previously defined as referring to the believers within that one body. For in 1

Cor. 10:17 he stresses that all who have been baptized into the body of God's people "being many

are one loaf, and one body". There's only ultimately one loaf, as there's only one Christ. All within

that one body are partaking of the same loaf whenever they "break bread", and therefore division

between them is not possible in God's sight. "The bread which we break, is it not the koinonia, the

sharing in fellowship, of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). By breaking bread we show our unity

not only with Him personally, but with all others who are in His one body. To refuse to break bread

with other believers- which is what was happening in Corinth- is therefore stating that effectively

they are outside of the one body. And yet if in fact they are within the body of Christ, then it's

actually those who are refusing them the emblems who are thereby declaring themselves not to be

part of Christ.

Although sects and divisions should not be within the one body of Christ, in another sense there

must be such sectarianism that they which are approved may be ―made manifest‖ by their response

to it (1 Cor. 11:29)- in anticipation of how we will all be ―made manifest‖ (s.w.) at the judgment

(Lk. 8:17; 1 Cor. 3:13). In this we see the Divine ecology; nothing is wasted. There must not be

divisions; but even when they do occur, they are used by God in order to manifest the righteous and

the principles of true spirituality. Thus trial can easily arise from within our ecclesial experience.

Although sects and divisions should not be within the one body of Christ, in another sense there

must be such sectarianism that they which are approved may be "made manifest" by their response

to it (1 Cor. 11:29)- in anticipation of how we will all be "made manifest" (s.w.) at the judgment

(Lk. 8:17; 1 Cor. 3:13). In this we see the Divine ecology; nothing is wasted. There must not be

divisions; but because they do occur, they are used by God in order to manifest the righteous even

now.

Our attitude to the cross and all that is meant by it is the summation of our spirituality. I normally

dislike using alternative textual readings to make a point, but there is an alternative reading of 1

Cor. 11:29 which makes this point so clearly: ―He who eats and drinks [‗unworthily‘ isn‘t in many

manuscripts], eats and drinks discernment [judgment] to Himself. Not discerning the Lord‘s body is

the reason many of you are weak and sickly". The Corinthians were not discerning the difference

between the Lord‘s body and a piece of bread, for they were eating the bread as part of a self-

indulgent social meal, rather than discerning Him.

The command to examine ourselves (11:29) uses the same word as in 3:13 concerning the way our

works will be tried with fire by the judgment process of the last day. If members of an ecclesia

break bread unworthily, they ―come together unto condemnation" (11:34). Yet we must judge

ourselves at these meetings, to the extent of truly realising we deserve condemnation (1 Cor. 11:31).

We must examine ourselves and conclude that at the end of the day we are ―unprofitable servants"

(Lk. 18:10), i.e. worthy of condemnation (the same phrase is used about the rejected, Mt. 25:30).

This is after the pattern of the brethren at the first breaking of bread asking ―Is it I?" in response to

the Lord‘s statement that one of them would betray Him (Mt. 26:22). They didn‘t immediately

assume they wouldn‘t do. And so we have a telling paradox: those who condemn themselves at the

memorial meeting will not be condemned. Those who are sure they won‘t be condemned, taking the

emblems with self-assurance, come together unto condemnation. Job knew this when he said that if

he justifies himself, he will be condemned out of his own mouth (Job 9:20- he understood the idea

of self-condemnation and judgment now). Isaiah also foresaw this, when he besought men (in the

present tense): ―Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory

of his majesty", and then goes on to say that in the day of God‘s final judgment, ―[the rejected] shall

go into the holes of the rock... for fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty when he ariseth

to shake terribly the earth" (Is. 2:10,11,19-21). We must find a true, self-condemning humility now,

unless it will be forced upon us at the judgment.

309

Judging / examining ourselves is made parallel with discerning the Lord's body: as if discerning His

body on the cross inevitably results in self-examination, and vice versa (1 Cor. 11:28,29). We must

discern the Lord's body, and thereby examine ourselves (these are the same words in the Greek

text). Yet the Lord‘s body in the Corinthian context is the ecclesia, the body of Jesus. To discern

ourelves is to discern the Lord‘s body (1 Cor. 11:29,30 RV). By discerning our brethren for who

they are, treating them as brethren, perceiving our own part in the body of Jesus, our salvation is

guaranteed. For this is love, in its most fundamental essence.

If we examine / judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, God will not have to do

this to us at the day of judgment. If we cast away our own bodies now, the Lord will not need to cast

us away in rejection (Mt. 5:30). There is a powerful logic here. If we pronounce ourselves

uncondemned, we condemn ourselves (Tit. 3:11); if we condemn ourselves now, we will be

uncondemned ultimately. This is why the Greek word translated "examine" (1 Cor. 11:29) is also

that translated "approve" in 11:19 (and also 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:15). By condemning

ourselves we in a sense approve ourselves. Our self-examination should result in us realising our

unworthiness, seeing ourselves from God's viewpoint. There is therefore a parallel made between

our own judgment of ourselves at the memorial meeting, and the final judgment- where we will be

condemned, yet saved by grace (James 2:12; 3:1). If we don't attain this level of self-knowledge

now, we will be taught it by being condemned at the judgment. This makes the logic of serious, real

self-examination so vital; either we do it in earnest, and realise our own condemnation, or if we

don't do it, we'll be condemned at the judgment. Yet as with so much in our spiritual experience,

what is so evidently logical is so hard to translate into reality. The process of judgment will

essentially be for our benefit, not the Lord's. Then the foolish virgins realise that they didn't have

enough oil / spirituality; whilst the wise already knew this (Mt. 25:13). As a foretaste of the day of

judgment, we must "examine" ourselves, especially at the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:28). The

same word is used in 1 Cor. 3:13 concerning how the process of the judgment seat will be like a fire

which tries us.

11:30 It was due to an incorrect attitude to the memorial meeting that many at Corinth were struck

down "weak and sickly... and many sleep" (1 Cor. 11:30), presumably referring to the power the

apostles had to smite apostate believers with physical discomfort and death. Such was the

importance accorded to that meeting by them.

11:31 If we perceive ourselves as worthy of condemnation, we will be saved. If we would judge [i.e.

condemn] ourselves, we will not be judged / condemned (1 Cor. 11:31). This is written in the

context of the breaking of bread. When we examine ourselves then, and at other times, do we get to

the point where we truly feel through and through our condemnation? If this is how we perceive our

natural selves, then surely we will be saved- if we also believe with joy that God‘s righteousness is

counted to us. See on Lk. 17:10.

If we would judge ourselves (at the breaking of bread), we should not be judged" (1 Cor. 11:31) in

the sense of being condemned. Our self-examination must be so intense that we appreciate that we

ought to be condemned; if we achieve that level of self-knowledge now, we will not be condemned

at the judgment. In the context of the self-examination command in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is speaking of

the need to completely focus our attention on the sacrifice of Christ. Yet this command must have

its basis in the directive for Israel to search their house for leaven before eating the Passover (Ex.

12:19). "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven... of malice and wickedness" (1 Cor.

5:8). The disciples‘ question at the first breaking of bread, ―Lord, is it I?" is another prototype of the

command to examine ourselves at the feast (Mt. 26:22). Combining Paul's command to examine

ourselves that we are really focusing upon our Lord's sacrifice, and the Exodus allusion which

implies that we should examine our own lives for wickedness, we conclude that if we properly

reflect upon Christ and His victory for us, then we will inevitably be aware of our own specific

failures which Christ really has vanquished. But this will come as a by-product of truly grasping the

310

fullness of the Lord's victory. The Passover was to be a public proclamation to the surrounding

world of what God had done for Israel. Likewise our feast 'shows forth' (Greek: publicly declares')

the Lord's death. Our memorial meeting should therefore include a degree of openly declaring to

others what spiritual deliverances the Lord has wrought for us. This is surely the sort of talk that

should fill up the half hour between ending the service and leaving the hall.

11:32- see on Lk. 13:28.

Apostate Israel are spoken of as the pagan world; and therefore at the day of judgment the rejected

of the new Israel will be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:32); assigned their portion

"with the unbelievers" (Lk. 12:46). If we are not separate from this world now, we will not be

separated from them when the judgments fall. If we don't come out from Babylon, we will share her

judgments (Rev. 18:4).

―The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov. 20:27); our self-

examination is what reveals us to the Lord. What we think about at the memorial meeting, as we are

faced with the memory of the crucified Saviour, is therefore an epitome of what we really are. If all

we are thinking of is the taste of the wine, the cover over the bread, the music, what we didn‘t agree

with in the sermon, all the external things of our Christianity; or if we are sitting there taking bread

and wine as a conscience salver, doing our little religious ritual to make us feel psychologically

safe- then we simply don‘t know Him. We are surface level believers only. And this is the message

we give Him. Our spirit / attitude is the candle of the Lord, with which He searches us. Our thoughts

when confronted by the cross reveal us to Him who died on it. Likewise Joseph (one of the most

detailed types of the Lord) knew / discerned his brethren by his cup (Gen. 44:5). 1 Cor. 11:31,32

further suggests that our self-judgment at the breaking of bread is in fact the lord‘s judgment of us:

―If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened

of the Lord". We expect Paul to say: ‗But when we judged ourselves, we are chastened...‘. But he

doesn‘t; our judgment is what reveals us to the Lord, and is therefore the basis of His judgment of

us. Even if we flunk conscious self-examination from an underlying disbelief that we will attain the

Kingdom, then this of itself reveals our hearts to Him. Because of this connection between the

breaking of bread and judgment, it would seem that the first century church experienced the

physical chastising of the Lord in terms of being struck with sickness and even death at the

memorial meeting (1 Cor. 11:29,30). Thus at ecclesial meetings- particularly the breaking of bread-

the early church confessed their sins and prayed for healing from the afflictions some were smitten

with as a result of their sins (James 5:14-16). It's easy to forget that the prophecy of the crucifixion

in Is. 53 is in fact a confession of repentance by God's people- as His sufferings are spoken about, so

they lead to the confession that "He was bruised for our iniquities... with his stripes we are healed"

(Is. 53:3,5). Reflection on the servant's sufferings elicited repentance. See on Lk. 2:35.

11:34 If we break bread unworthily, they ―come together unto condemnation‖ (11:34). Yet we must

judge ourselves at these meetings, to the extent of truly realising we deserve condemnation (1 Cor.

11:31). If we feel we are worthy, then, we are unworthy. If we feel unworthy, then, we are worthy.

The eating and drinking at the memorial meeting is a judging of ourselves. It‘s a preview of the

judgment. 1 Cor. 11 seems to be concerning behaviour at the memorial meeting. Time and again the

brethren are described as ―coming together" to that meeting (:17,18,20,33,34). Believers ‗coming

together‘ is the language of coming together to judgment. Where two or three are gathered , the

Lord is in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20) uses the same word as in Mt. 25:32 concerning our

gathering together unto judgment. We should not forsake the ―assembling of [ourselves] together"

(Heb. 10:25)- the same word as in 2 Thess. 2:1 regarding our ―gathering together unto Him". The

church being assembled (Acts 11:26), two or three being gathered (Mt. 18:20)- this is all a foretaste

of the final gathering to judgment (Mt. 25:32 s.w.).

311

12:3 It deeply costs us to accept Jesus as Lord. Yet for so many moments of each day, we deny Him

His Lordship in practice. In the first century, accepting Jesus as Lord was a life and death issue.

Pliny wrote to Trajan how accused Christians had to both say "The emperor is Lord" and also curse

Christ. Polycarp was urged by a Roman official to submit: "What harm is there in saying "Caesar is

Lord?"", and yet because he refused, Polycarp was killed (Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.2). It would

seem that there were some Christians who gave in- and even justified it. For 1 Cor. 12:3 warns that

"no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is cursed!", and no one can say "Jesus is

Lord" except by the Holy Spirit". My suggestion is that this is a reference to Mt. 10:17, which

comforts believers that when we are delivered up, "what you are to say will be given you in that

hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you". It would

appear that some of the Christians who gave in were claiming that in accordance with this verse, it

was the Spirit of God which had made them say "Jesus is cursed!" and deny that "Jesus is Lord".

Paul is pointing out that this simply doesn't happen. In our context, the point simply is that to

constantly affirm "Jesus is Lord" demands an awful lot from us, and as in the first century, so in the

twenty first... we will be sorely tempted to think that just a few moments of denial when in a tough

situation is quite OK. But in this there is the true test as to whether really we are under His Lordship

or not. We have no court to face, no lions to fear. Instead, we have the court of human opinion, the

lions of social mockery, financial loss, the human negatives that arise from the unselfish living

which Christ's Lordship demands of us.

12:7- see on Mt. 25:15.

Having spoken of the need to ‗discern the body‘ of Jesus at these gatherings, Paul launches off in 1

Cor. 12 into his explanation of how there is only one body of Christ, but to ―each‖ has been given

different gifts and emphases. Sadly many English translations confuse the issue, by speaking of how

to ―each man‖ is given a Holy Spirit gift (1 Cor. 12:7). But the Greek definitely means ‗to each

one‘, and I suggest it refers to how each house church was given a specific gift. I say that because

there is New Testament evidence that suggests that not every single individual believer in the first

century had Holy Spirit gifts. That is hard to square with 1 Cor. 12 teaching that ‗each one‘ had such

gifts. But remember the context. Paul has been arguing that there is one body of Christ in Corinth,

and each house church contributes towards that. The house churches were divided against each

other and some groups shunned others. Paul is saying that each of those house groups played a vital

role. We can take a lesson from this. Each ecclesia even today has a somewhat different emphasis,

and all too easily, ecclesias can divide from each other. And yet this would be a denial of the one

body of Christ; we not only need each other individually, each ecclesia needs each other ecclesia in

their area, if they are to fully function as the one body. The warning against ―schism in the body‖ (1

Cor. 12:25) applied in the context to there being schism between local house churches, rather than

between individuals.

12:11 - see on Mt. 25:15.

12:12 The term "Christ" is even used of the believers, such is His unity with us (1 Cor. 12:12). See

on Jn. 3:11.

12:13- see on Gal. 3:27.

Christ "shall baptize you" plural (Mt. 3:11) was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see

in the fact that we plural are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body,

without unnecessary divisions (= 1 Cor. 12:13).

―For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The Spirit seems to

be the baptizer. But how? The Lord Jesus baptizes by the Spirit (Jn. 1:33), although He didn't

personally hold the shoulders of those He baptized (Jn. 4:2- doubtless to show that who does this is

irrelevant). We obeyed the Truth (through baptism) "by the Spirit" (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:22). This

doesn't necessarily mean that the Spirit made us obey the Truth. Rather is the idea that as Christ

312

died and was raised by the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 1:4), so we go through the same process in

baptism, being likewise resurrected (in a figure) by the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18-21). It is therefore the

Spirit which raises us up out of the water, as it raised Christ; the man holding our shoulders is

irrelevant. It is therefore through / by the Spirit that we have our hope of salvation (Gal. 5:5). There

is only one resurrection, ultimately: that of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:14,15). By baptism into Him,

we have a part in that. God in this sense resurrected us with Christ (Eph. 2:5,6), we even ascended

into heavenly places in Him, as He rose up into the literal Heavens. And this whole process was

achieved by the Spirit. But what does the Spirit" mean in this context? The Lord Jesus Himself is

the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). The Spirit is what quickens us; but consider Jn. 6:63: ―It is the

Spirit that quickeneth... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are (what gives)

life‖. The process of coming alive with Christ by baptism, the raising out of the grave which the

water represents, is therefore due to the work of the Lord Jesus through His Spirit and His word. He

is "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). At baptism we are born of (or by) water-and-spirit (Jn.

3:5; the Greek implies one act, combining water and spirit). We were washed by baptism "in the

name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). ―He that is joined to the Lord

(Jesus) (by baptism) is one spirit (with Him)" (1 Cor. 6:17). We are saved "by the washing

(baptism) of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; which he shed on us abundantly by

Jesus Christ" (Tit. 3:5,6). See on Jn. 3:5.

12:14 Our baptism was not only a statement of our relationship with the Lord Jesus; it is also a sign

of our entry into the body of the Lord Jesus, i.e. the community of believers, the one ecclesia (Col.

1:24). Members are added to the church through baptism (Acts 2:41,47; 5:14; 11:24); thus baptism

enables entry into the one body of Christ. Consider carefully how that whoever is properly baptized

is a member of the one body, and is bound together with all other members of that body: "As the

body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one

body: so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body... for the body is not one

member, but many" (1 Cor. 12:12-14). Paul, in his relentless manner, drives the point home time

and again. He goes on to reason that just because the hand says it isn't of the body, and won't co-

operate with the feet, this doesn't mean that it therefore isn't of the body.

12:15 When we are first baptized, we can tend to view those who leave our community as simply

hard to understand, but we may easily shrug it off. Yet surely we need to do more; to feel more for

them. And to realize that we all leave, in that we can be lost in sin for minutes or hours at a time,

having numbed our responsibilities to the Father and Son. And yet, we are in covenant relationship

with Him. This means that we do not slip in and out of fellowship with Him according to our

concentration upon Him or our spirituality. We likewise shouldn‘t call those who leave us Mr or

Mrs. They are always our brother or sister. We are in a family bond with them. Even if the hand

says " I am not of the body, it is not therefore not of the body" (1 Cor. 12:15 RV). These words were

written in the context of some of the Corinthian brethren resigning from the ecclesia and joining the

various temples of even synagogues in the town. But they couldn‘t really resign from a relationship

with God; resign from the fact that their Lord bled to death for them.

Having reminded us that "by one Spirit are we all baptize into the one body" (1 Cor. 12:13), Paul

makes the obvious point- that as members of that body we cannot, we dare not, say to other

members of the body "I have no need [necessity] of you" (1 Cor. 12:21). To fellowship with the

others in the body of Christ is our "necessity"; this is why an open table to all those who are in

Christ isn't an option, but a necessity. Otherwise, we are declaring ourselves not to be in the body.

Indeed "those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary" (1 Cor. 12:22).

By rights, we ought to be condemned for such behaviour; for by refusing our brethren we are

refusing membership in Christ. And yet I sense something of the grace of both God and Paul when

he writes that if someone says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not

of the body?" (1 Cor. 12:15). I take this to mean that even if a member of the body acts like they

aren't in the body, this doesn't mean that ultimately they aren't counted as being in the body. But all

313

the same, we shouldn't stare condemnation in the face by rejecting ourselves from the body of Christ

by rejecting the members of His body at the Lord's table. That's the whole point of Paul's argument.

Naturally this raises the question: "Well who is in the body?". Paul says that we are baptized into

the body (1 Cor. 10:17); and this throws the question a stage further back: "So what, then, makes

baptism valid?". Baptism is into the body of Christ, into His person, His death and His resurrection;

and not into any human denomination or particular set of theology. If the illiterate can understand

the Gospel, if thousands could hear the Gospel for a few hours and be baptized into Christ in

response to it- it simply can't be that a detailed theology is necessary to make baptism valid. For the

essence of Christ, His death and resurrection, is surely simple rather than complicated. Those who

believe it and are baptized into it are in His body and are thus our brethren- whatever finer

differences in understanding, inherited tradition and style we may have.

12:21 1 Cor. 12:21 gives something more than a random example: the head (the Lord Jesus) cannot

do without the feet (a symbol of the preacher in Rom. 10:15). In the work of witness especially, the

Head is reliant on the preacher for the work He wills to be done. He likens preaching to drag net

fishing (Mt. 13:47), in which one big fishing boat drags a net which is tied to a small dinghy. God‘s

fishing is thus dependent on us, the smaller boat, working with Him. Thus the harvest was plenteous

during the Lord‘s ministry, but relatively few were converted due to the dearth of labourers (Mt.

9:37 implies).

As John realized the tendency of some to think they could love God without loving His Sons, so

Paul tackled the same problem at Corinth. He reasons that "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no

need of thee... if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not

of the body? And if they were all one member, where were the body?" (1 Cor. 12:21). He knew that

some would want to go off on their own, and he shows that such behaviour would suggest that they

alone were the whole body. He knew that some would think that they had no need of other parts of

the ecclesial body; he saw that some would feel that they were so inferior to others that they had no

place in the body. All these are reasons why believers push off on their own. But notice that Paul

doesn't actually say 'the eye shouldn't say to the hand, I have no need of thee'; but rather "the eye

cannot say to the hand...". Although some may say or feel this, ultimately, from God's perspective,

it's simply not valid. Christian disillusion with Christianity mustn't lead us to quit the body. The

same logic applies to those who think that the body of Christ is divided; ultimately, there is one

body, and from God's perspective this is indivisible. The divisions only exist in the minds of men.

Those who say that they don't need fellowship with their brethren "cannot say" this, according to

Paul. If they continue on this road, ultimately they declare themselves not of the one body of Christ;

although I trust there are many brethren who have done just this who may still receive God's

gracious salvation.

Many of those who ungraciously storm out of fellowship with the rest of the body, do so because

they complain that other believers are weak, unloving, hypocrites, don't practice what they preach

etc. And in many ways, their complaints are true (seeing that the Lord came to heal those who need

a doctor rather than shake hands with the healthy). And again, Paul has a comment on this situation.

He says that those parts of our bodies "that seem to be weaker...that we think are less honourable...

the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty... with special honour" (NIV). The

private parts of our bodies are the parts we are most sensitive to, although on the outside they seem

weak and hidden. And so Paul reasons that the weaker parts of the ecclesial body should be treated

the same. The Greek for "feeble" (1 Cor. 12:21) is used (notably in Corinthians) to describe spiritual

weakness: Mk. 14:38; Rom. 5:6; 1 Cor. 8:7,10; 9:22; 11:30; 1 Thess. 5:14. And in some ways, we

are all "weak" (1 Cor. 1:27; 4:10). So those we perceive ("that seem to be... that we think") to be

spiritually weak in their external appearance, we should be especially sensitive towards.

Significantly, the ―sick" (s.w. "feeble") in the parable of Mt. 25:44 are the "least" of Christ's

brethren, the spiritually weakest; and at the day of judgment, the rejected are condemned because of

their attitude towards these spiritually weakest of Christ's brethren.

314

12:21,22- see on 1 Cor. 12:15.

12:22 Our attitude to the spiritually weak is a vital part of our salvation. Christian disillusion with

Christianity ignores this at its peril. Thus "those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are

indispensable" (1 Cor. 12:22 NIV); indispensable for our spiritual development and salvation. So

we shouldn't be surprised if we don't like our brethren, if there are things which unbearably bug us

about the community. This irritation, this clear vision of the weakness of our fellow believers, is a

God-designed feature of our spiritual experience. If the day of disillusion and disappointment with

the brotherhood hasn't come for you, it surely will do. But remember how indispensable this all is.

Consider all the miserable complaints believers make about us: they gossip about me, they actually

fabricate things as well as exaggerate, she stole from me, he disregards me, her son swore at me,

would you believe it (I would); they don't ask me to speak, he's such a hypocrite, and do you know

what she did... Let's say every word is true. These weak brethren and sisters who are doing all this

are "indispensable" to the salvation of the one who suffers all this, if he responds properly. Just

walking away from them is to effectively put ourselves outside the body. We need them, the Spirit

says, we need all the mud, the comments and the undermining and the upstaging and the betrayal,

all at the most sensitive and hurtful points.

12:23 Paul, as always, is our hero. For no other believer was tempted to be as anti-Christian as he

was. The one who gave his life, his health, his career, his marriage, his soul, for the salvation of

others. Only to have confidences betrayed, to be cruelly slandered, to be threatened, to be so

passionately hated by his converts that some even tried to kill him and betray him to the Romans

and Jews. He talks of how we must honour those who we think are ―less honourable" (1 Cor.

12:23). He uses a word he earlier appropriates to himself in 1 Cor. 4:10 (AV "despised"). He's

saying 'OK, if you think I'm so weak, so despised, let's say I am. But you should receive me,

because I'm still in the body'. And to that there was no answer (and still isn't any) by those

Christians disillusioned with Christianity.

12:24- see on Eph. 5:31.

God has "tempered" the whole body together (1 Cor. 12:24). This is alluding to the way in which

the unleavened cakes of flour were "mingled" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to

be an acceptable offering (Lev. 2:4,5; 7:10; 9:4 etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian

ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (1 Cor. 5:7); he is now saying that they have been "tempered"

together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or

denying, that ―tempering" of the body which God has made. It's like a husband and wife breaking

apart their marriage, which God has joined together. It isn't only that we are missing out on the

patience etc. which we could develop if we stayed in contact with our brethren. Our indifference

and shunning of our brethren is actively doing despite to the Spirit of grace and unity which in

prospect God has enabled His people to experience. The body ―maketh increase of itself... unto the

edifying of itself in love‖. By remaining in the body, we are built up from what every part of it

contributes to the growth of the whole. To quit from our brethren is to quit from that source of

nutrition and upbuilding. The earth in the sower parable represents various types of believers; and

the Lord went on to say that the earth brings forth fruit ―of itself‖. The community of itself brings

forth spirituality in its members. Some of the most Spirit-filled brethren and sisters you can meet are

those who have stuck at ecclesial life all their days, really struggled with personality clashes, with

endless ecclesial storms and wrangles- but they've stuck it out. And thereby they have remained in

touch with, and been moulded by, that Spirit of tempering together which is so fundamental to the

body of the Lord Jesus Christ.

―God hath... given more abundant honour unto that part which lacked" (1 Cor. 12:24), as the

husband should "(give) honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel" (1 Pet. 3:7). God's dealings

with the ecclesia are replicated both within marriage, and within the ecclesia- for we too should give

special respect and sensitivity to the weaker parts of the ecclesial body (Rom. 14:1; 15:1).

315

12:25- see on 1 Cor. 12:7.

12:28 God set the apostles first in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 12:28)- but in another sense, God set the

apostles last in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 4:9).

12:31 1 Cor. 12:31-13:12 implies that Paul was faced with the higher choice of the ministry of love

and the written word, compared to the lower choice of exercising the Spirit gifts. By all means

compare this with the choice which he had in Phil. 1:21-26: to exit this life was made possible to

him, but he chose the higher, more difficult and more spiritually risky option of living for a few

more years, in order to strengthen his brethren. See on 1 Cor 7:11.

13 The description of love in 1 Cor. 13, the outline of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22-26, these

are all portraits of the man Christ Jesus. The clearest witness to Him ―therefore consists in human

life in which his image is reproduced‖.

13:2- see on Mt. 7:22.

The fact we copy the language patterns of those we are with was true for Paul. The Gospels were so

much in his heart that he can hardly speak or write without some reference, consciously or

unconsciously, to the Lord Jesus. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:2 I sense that Paul as he is writing (on a human

level) was looking round for a superlative to express just how useless we are without love. And the

superlative expression he picks is unconsciously taken out of the Gospels (Mt. 17:20): "Though I

have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing".

Even if we have faith to move mountains- an allusion to the Lord's teaching in Mt. 21:21- we 'are

nothing' without love (1 Cor. 13:2). God so respects faith that He may hear the prayer of a believer,

even though He considers that person "nothing" because they lack love. Rather like Elijah bringing

fire down from Heaven by his faith- and yet the Lord Jesus seems to imply that this wasn't the right

thing to have done, because Elijah lacked love (Lk. 9:55). In our self-examination we may perceive

how God answers our prayers, our faith is rewarded... and think we're doing OK. But it could be that

we are still "nothing". It's a sobering thought. Paul goes on in 1 Cor. 15:2,19 to say that faith can be

"in vain", and hope can likewise be merely of benefit in this life. But 1 Cor. 13:3 hits even harder

home: a believer can give their body to be burned, for nothing, if they lack love. Remember these

words were written, albeit under inspiration, by a believer who did give his body to die a violent

death, and who had seen with his own eyes the death of Christians. Surely Paul writes with a

warning word to himself; that even that apparent pinnacle of devotion to the Lord can be in vain, if

we lack love.

Note how he writes in the first person: "If I have all faith... but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor.

13:2). It's not only that Paul is warning himself personally; the only other time the Greek phrase "I

am nothing" occurs is Paul speaking about himself, also to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 12:11). There's a

kind of association of ideas between the "I am [nothing]" and "Love is [everything]". Unless we 'are'

love, we 'are' nothing.

13:3- see on Acts 7:59.

Let's not equate true love with the mere act of giving aid to charities. We can give all our goods to

feed the poor, but lack true love; the life of love, the love of Christ permeating all our being (1 Cor.

13:3 may well have been written by Paul with his mind on some in the early Jerusalem ecclesia,

who did give all their goods to the ecclesial poor, but lacked a true love, and returned to Judaism).

Some of the legal terms used in the NT for our redemption imply that Christ redeemed us from

slavery through His death. And yet one could redeem a slave by oneself becoming a slave (1 Cor.

6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3:13; 4:5). This is why the crucified Jesus is typified by the suffering servant / slave

of Isaiah‘s prophesies. And Paul seems to have risen up to something similar when he speaks of

giving his body to be branded, i.e. becoming a slave (1 Cor. 13:3 Gk.).

316

13:4 The device of acrostic Psalms (9,10,25,34,37,119,145) and the use of acrostics in Lamentations

and Esther would enable the reciting of them. The repetition of the same word at the beginning of

successive sentences is yet another such feature (Dt. 28:3-6; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 1:18; Hos. 3:4; 1Cor.

13:4; 2 Cor. 2:11; Eph. 6:12). The same phrase is also sometimes repeated at the beginning and end

of a sentence with the same effect (Ex. 32:16; 2 Kings 23:25; Ps. 122:7,8; Mk. 7:14-16; Lk. 12:5;

Jn. 3:8 Rom. 14:8 Gk.).

I find it deeply concerning that so many who have committed themselves to Christ are unable to

confidently answer questions such as 'What is love?'. To expound the beasts of Daniel's visions is

relatively easy- this equals that, that refers to this. But to get to grips with "love" appears to have

been given all too little attention. Love is patient / long-suffering (1 Cor. 13:4). But let's not think

that patience simply means how we react to forgetting our keys or spilling milk. To some extent,

whether we take such events calmly or less calmly is a function of our personality, our nervous

structure, the kind of cards we were dealt at birth. I suggest that the long-suffering patience Paul

refers to instead has reference to our forgiving attitude to others, rather than applying to whether or

not we get frustrated with ourselves. The man hopelessly in debt to his Lord begged for Him to

show "patience" (Mt. 18:26). Patience is about not forcing others to "pay me what you owe me". We

all have many people in our lives who are in our debt- more such people than we may realize. We

have all been hurt by more people, and hurt more deeply, than we realize. Patience is about bearing

long with their immaturity, waiting for them, whilst the debts remain unpaid; rather than demanding

that they resolve with us before we'll fellowship them.

Love is not "puffed up" (1 Cor. 13:4). Earlier in Corinthians, Paul has warned that "knowledge puffs

up" (1 Cor. 8:1). Let us never kid ourselves that because we "know" some things about God, even

know them correctly, that we will thereby be justified. It's not a case of simply holding on to a set of

doctrinal propositions which we received at the time of our baptism into Christ. For the day of

judgment won't be an examination of our knowledge or intellectual purity. This is not to say that

knowledge isn't important. Paul had been arguing that if we truly know that God is one, that idols

therefore have no real existence, that we are free in Christ to eat any meat- then this knowledge

should not lead us to be arrogantly insensitive to our brother or sister who has a less mature

understanding or conscience. Love is... not like that. Love therefore restrains our own superior

knowledge and bears with those who don't quite 'get it' as they should. Again, our pattern is God's

attitude to us who know just a fraction of His ultimate Truth.

13:5 provoked- see on Acts 15:39.

Faced by the heights of such challenges, we can easily despair. We are not like this, or not like it

very often nor very deeply. But Paul felt the same, even though under inspiration he himself wrote

the poem. Paul too realized his failure, the slowness of his progress. When he writes that love is not

"easily provoked" (1 Cor. 13:5), he uses the same Greek word which we meet in Acts 15:39

describing the provocation / contention he had with Barnabas which led to their division. Surely he

had that on his conscience when he wrote that love is not like that.

This love "seeks not her own" (1 Cor. 13:5). This phrase again builds on Paul's earlier argument in

Corinthians- that we should act sensitively to others weaker in the faith, not doing things which may

make them stumble, according to the principle "Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbour's

good" (1 Cor. 10:25). This is quite something. All the time, in every decision, action, position we

adopt, we are to think of what would be best for others rather than what's cool for ourselves. At the

very least, this means that we are to act in life consciously- not just go with the flow, reacting to

things according to our gut feeling, chosing according to what seems right, comfortable and

convenient to us at that moment; but rather thinking through what import our positions and actions

will have upon others. It takes time to think out what will be beneficial for them. And "love is..."

just this. This is a way of life and thinking which it's very rare to meet in people. Almost frustrated,

Paul lamented: "For all men seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's" (Phil. 2:21). 1

317

Cor. 10:25 spoke of seeking not our own good, but the good of our brethren- i.e. "the things which

are Jesus Christ's". But according to Phil. 2:20,21, Paul felt that only Timothy understood this spirit

of not seeking our own good, but that of the things of Christ, i.e. our brethren. The life of love is

therefore a lonely life. So few 'get it'.

Love is not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13:5)- and here we have an allusion to how slow God was to

anger with Israel. As their loving husband He stuck with them for centuries, enduring what would

have emotionally shattered many husbands if they endured it just for a few months, and putting up

with what most men couldn't handle even for a year. God was slow to anger for centuries, and even

then in that wrath He remembered mercy, even in His judgments He desperately sought to find a

way to go on with Israel in some form. And we are asked to show that same slowness to anger.

The mind of love imputes no evil to others, as God doesn‘t to us (1 Cor. 13:5; AV ―thinketh no

evil‖, s.w. to count / impute in Romans). The Greek word can also mean that love keeps no records

or count of wrong done. We must forgive our brethren as God forgives us (Eph. 4:32). God

expunges the spiritual record of the sin, and will not feed it into some equation which determines

whether we can be forgiven. Christ "frankly" forgave the debtors in the parable. The frankness of

that forgiveness does not suggest a process of careful calculation before it could be granted. God's

frank forgiveness is seen too in Ps. 130:3: "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord who

shall stand?". God does not "mark" sin, as our love for our brethren should keep no record of their

past sins (1 Cor. 13:5-7 N.I.V.). If we refuse fellowship people because of the effect of past sins for

which they have repented, then we are 'marking' iniquity. God does not deal with us in a manner

which is proportional to the type or amount of sin we commit (Ps. 103:7-12).

13:6 What Paul is advocating is a conscious outgiving of ourselves to love. Not just being a nice

enough person, a reasonable neighbour, partner, parent, a "top bloke", real decent guy. But a love

which is actually beyond even that. A love modelled on God's love, and the love of Him who loved

us and gave Himself for us crucifixion. Paul's poem personifies love as a person- love, e.g.,

"rejoices with the truth", hopes and endures. We too are to 'be' love. Not just occasionally, not just

in ways which we are accustomed to, which are convenient to us, or are part of our background

culture such as occasional hospitality to strangers. "Love is...", and we are 'to be' love, as if our very

name and soul and heart is 'agape'. Love is not an option- it's to be the vital essence of 'us'.

13:7 Atonement means 'covering'. Because God covers our sins, we ought to cover those of others.

The simple statement "love covereth all sins" (Prov. 10:12) comes in the context of appealing for

God's people not to gossip about each others' failures. And the passage is most definitely applied to

us in the NT (1 Pet. 4:8; James 5:20; 1 Cor. 13:7RVmg. "love covereth all things"). "He that goeth

about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter" (Prov.

11:13). Our natural delight in telling or brooding on the moral failures of others, as if life is one long

soap opera, will be overcome if we have personally felt the atonement; the covering of our sins. "He

that covereth his [own] sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have

mercy" (Prov. 28:13). The opposition is between owning up to our sins, and trying to cover them for

ourselves. If we believe in the covering work of God in Christ, then we will own up to our sins the

more easily, confident in His atonement.

Love bears / covers / carries all things (1 Cor. 13:7). This is the language of the cross- the Lord

Jesus bearing, carrying our sins, and covering them. If we really grasp this, it ought to make us take

a deeper breath. We are being asked to personally enter into the cross of Christ. To not just benefit

from it ourselves, admire it from afar, look at it as Catholics glance at a crucifix over the door,

pause for a moment in unthinking respect of tradition, and then go headlong through the door. No.

We are asked to get involved in the cross, to participate in it, to bear it ourselves. The mind that was

in the Lord Jesus at that time is to be the mind which is in us (Phil. 2:5-7).

318

13:8-10 Paul didn't just start writing his poem about love in 1 Cor. 13. It's wedged firmly in a

context, a clearly defined unit of material about the use of the Spirit gifts spanning 1 Cor. 12-14.

Having clarified his own authority and personal experience of the miraculous gifts, he proceeds to

shew the Corinthians "a more excellent way" (1 Cor. 12:31). He uses a Greek word four times,

although most English translations render it inconsistently. It's worth highlighting the words in your

Bible, maybe with a note like "s.w." ['same word'] next to them:

- "Prophecies shall fail" (1 Cor. 13:8)

- The Spirit gift of "knowledge shall vanish away" (1 Cor. 13:8)

- "That which is partial shall be done away" (1 Cor. 13:10)

- "Now that I am become a man [mature], I have put away childish [immature] things" (1 Cor.

13:11).

I read this as Paul saying that he used the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in his spiritual

immaturity; but in his maturity, he chose not to use them, he "put [them] away". Paul also writes of

how the miraculous gifts will be "done away" when "that which is perfect [complete, mature] is

come" (1 Cor. 13:10). He seems to be saying that his personal growth from childhood to manhood,

from immaturity to maturity, is a reflection of how ultimately the gifts will be no more when the

mature state has come; and he wishes to attain that state now in this life, and thus he ceased using

the gifts. He asks us likewise in this context to follow his pattern, to be "mature" [AV "be men"] (1

Cor. 14:20). This connects with how he speaks in Col. 3:14 of "above all" having love, which is the

seal, the proof, of the mature state [AV "the bond of perfectness"]. In his own way, John spoke of

the same state when he wrote of "perfect / mature love", and how he who fears hasn't reached the

'perfected-in-love' stage (1 Jn. 4:18). Instead of flaunting the Spirit gifts, Paul sold his soul for love;

he gave himself over to the life characterized by the kind of love about which he writes so

powerfully in his poem. Paul laments that the Corinthians weren't mature (1 Cor. 3:2), and wishes to

be able to speak to them as "mature" (1 Cor. 2:6). So often in the decisions we face in life, it doesn't

come down to a right or wrong, a yes or no; rather it's a question of what is the mature Christian

behaviour, and what isn't.

13:8-11 Closer study of 1 Cor. 13 suggests that the time of the withdrawal of the gifts was in fact at

the time when the Mosaic sacrifices ceased to be offered. There was an interim period between the

death of the Lord Jesus and the destruction of the temple in AD70. During this time, various

concessions were made to the Jewish believers; they were permitted to obey Mosaic regulations for

the time being, even though the Spirit through Paul made it clear that they were unable to give

salvation, and were in comparison to Christ ―the weak and beggarly elements‖. The early believers

were guided through this period by the presence of the miraculous Holy Spirit gifts amongst them,

pronouncing, prophesying, enabling preaching in new areas through the gift of languages,

organizing the ecclesias etc. But once the ecclesia came to maturity, the written word replaced the

gifts. Most if not all the New Testament was completed by AD70, and this was around the time the

gifts were withdrawn. Paul uses the same Greek word several times in 1 Cor. 13, even though it is

somewhat masked in the translations. The following words in italics all translate the same Greek

word: ―Prophecies… shall fail… [the gift of] knowledge shall vanish away… that which is in part

shall be done away… when I became a man, I put away childish things‖ (:8,10,11). Paul is

predicting how the gifts of the Spirit would be withdrawn once the church reached the point of

maturity; but he says that he himself has already matured, and he has ―put away‖ the things of his

immaturity- i.e. he no longer exercised the gifts for himself. He presents himself, as he often does,

as the pattern for the church to follow. Thus the gifts ―shall be done away‖ in the future for the

church as a whole when they are perfect / mature, but for him, he has already ‗done them away‘ as

he has himself reached maturity. In the same language as Ephesians 4, he is no longer a child, tossed

to and fro and needing the support of the Spirit gifts. He laments that the believers were still

children (1 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 5:13)- yet, using the same Greek word, he says that he is no longer a

child, but is mature. In Gal. 4:3, Paul speaks about how he had once been a child in the sense that he

319

was under the Mosaic Law. But now, he has put that behind him. He is mature; and yet here in 1

Cor. 13:10 he associates being mature with putting away the gifts of the Spirit.

The same Greek word translated ―fail… be done away… vanish away‖ is used in many other places

concerning the passing away of the Mosaic Law:

- ―We are delivered from the law‖ (Rom. 7:6). We are like a woman loosed from her husband,

i.e. the Law of Moses (Rom. 7:2).

- The glory of the Law was to be done away (2 Cor. 3:7)

- The Law is being done away at the time Paul was writing (2 Cor. 3:11 Gk.). It was

abolished, done away in Christ (:13,14)

- Christ abolished the law of commandments (Eph. 2:15)

Likewise, the prophecy that ―tongues shall cease‖ (1 Cor. 13:8) uses the same word as in Heb. 10:2,

concerning how the sacrifices cease to be offered. The ―perfect man‖ state of the church, at which

the Spirit gifts were to be withdrawn (1 Cor. 13:10; Eph. 4:13) is to be connected with how the Lord

Jesus is the ―greater and more perfect tabernacle‖ compared to the Mosaic one (Heb. 9:11). The

conclusion seems to be that the ending of the Spirit gifts was related to the ending of the Mosaic

system in AD70.

13:11 The autobiographical section in 1 Cor. 13 shows him confessing that first of all, the public,

dramatic work associated with possession of the miraculous Spirit gifts had taken him up; yet he

likens that period to his spiritual childhood (note how he uses the same figure of childhood to

describe the dispensation of miraculous gifts in Eph. 4:11-16). He seems to have chosen not to use

the gifts so much, because he realized that the real maturity was faith, hope and love; and the

greatest of these, Paul came to realize, was love. And a true love must be the end point of our lives,

as it was for Moses, as it was for Jacob. If Peter's list of spiritual fruits in 2 Pet. 1:5-7 has any

chronological reference, it is significant that the final, crowning virtue is love- a love that is

somehow beyond even "brotherly kindness". Love is above all things the bond of spiritual

perfection (Col. 3:14).

13:12- see on Eph. 1:18; 4:15.

1 Cor. 13 and Eph. 4 are difficult to interpret. A valid case can be made for them meaning that the

dispensation of the Spirit gifts was partial, but the completed spiritual man was made possible once

the New Testament was completed. I have outlined this in Bible Basics Ch.2. But Paul's description

of the completed, "perfect" state is so exalted that it is hard to resist applying it ultimately to our

position in the Kingdom. "Then face to face... then shall I know (fully, not from parts); but now (as

opposed to then) abideth faith, hope and charity" (1 Cor. 13:12,13) sounds like the Kingdom. So I

would suggest we interpret those passages along these lines: 'Now, in the first century period of

Spirit gifts, knowledge is partial; a completer state will come when the written word is finished. But

even this is relatively partial, only a necessary step, towards the ultimate spiritual reality and

knowledge of the Kingdom'. The parable of the talents speaks eloquently of all this.

Moses is the one who saw God face to face (Num. 12:8). Surely Paul saw the depth of fellowship

which Moses achieved in this life as indicative of the richness of felicity with the Father which we

will all ultimately achieve.

To describe or ‗know‘ the real self is ultimately impossible; we can‘t write down an inventory of

who we really are. Paul perceived this when he wrote that now he only knows himself partially, and

only in the Kingdom ―shall I know, even as also I am known‖ (1 Cor. 13:12). This for me is one of

the Kingdom‘s joys; to truly know myself, even as I am presently known by the Father. Until then,

we remain mysteries even unto ourselves; and who amongst us has not quietly said that to

themselves... The question ‗Who am I?‘ must ultimately remain to haunt each one of us until that

blessed day. It would be too simplistic to argue that the new man, the real self of the believer, is

320

simply ―Jesus Christ‖. Our new man is formed in His image, but we are each a unique reflection of

our Lord. He isn‘t seeking to create uniform replicas of Himself; His personality is so multi-faceted

that it cannot be replicated in merely one form nor one person. This is why ―the body of Christ‖ is

comprised of so many individuals both over time and space; and it is my belief that when that large

community has manifested every aspect of the wonderful person of Jesus Christ, then we will be

ripe for His return. This is why the spiritual development of the last generation before the second

coming will hasten His return; for once they / we have replicated Himself in ourselves in our

various unique ways to a satisfactory extent, then He will return to take us unto Himself, that where

He ‗was‘ as He said those words, in terms of His character and person, there we will be (Jn. 14:3;

note that read this way, this passage is clearly not talking about Him taking us off to Heaven). Ps.

69:32 RV says simply: ―Let your heart live‖. In our terms, God is saying: ‗Be yourself, let your

inner man, the heart, come to the fore, and be lived out‘. Even if we feel we haven't got there 100%

in getting in touch with our real self, one of the joys of the Kingdom is that we shall know [i.e.

ourselves] even as we are now known by God (1 Cor. 13:12). We never quite get there in our self

understanding in this life- but then, we shall know, even as we are known.

Paul speaks as if he has in one sense matured into "love", no longer a child but a man; yet he writes

as if he is still in the partial, immature phase, seeing in a mirror darkly, waiting for the day when he

would see "face to face". Likewise "Now I know in part, but then shall I know..." (1 Cor. 13:12). It's

the 'now but not yet' situation which we often encounter in Scripture. In a sense we have attained to

the mature state of love; in reality, we are still far from it. Paul is alluding to Num. 12:8 LXX,

where God says that He spoke with Moses face to face and not in dark similitudes. Paul felt that he

wasn't yet as Moses, encountering God 'face to face' in the life of mature love. He was still seeing

through a glass darkly. But some time later, Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he was now

beholding the glory of the Lord's face [as it is in Christ] just as Moses did, "with unveiled face", and

bit by bit, that glory was shining from him (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). And hopefully we feel the same- that

bit by bit, we are getting there. So let's take Paul's urging seriously: to grasp the utter supremacy of

the life of love, to "follow after love", to press relentlessly towards that state of final maturity which

is love (1 Cor. 14:1). Powerfully did Paul conclude his Corinthian correspondence: "Finally,

brethren, farewell. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the

God of love and peace will be with you" (2 Cor. 13:11).

13:13 In the future Kingdom of God, there will be no need for the miraculous Spirit gifts as they

were in the first century. Love is "the greatest" because faith and hope will then have been turned to

sight and will be no more (1 Cor. 13:13). A theme of Corinthians is the ability of the believer to live

on different levels- e.g. 1 Corinthians 7 advocates the single life of devotion to God as the highest

level, but goes on to make a series of concessions to lower levels. It seems that in the matter of the

use of the miraculous Spirit gifts, Paul is again presenting a higher level upon which the believer of

his time could live- a "more excellent way". He wanted to live the Kingdom life now as far as

possible. We "have eternal life" not in the sense that we shall not die, but in the way that we in

Christ can live the kind of life we shall for ever live- right now.

14:2 The Songs Of The Sabbath Sacrifice was a document used in the Qumran community, claiming

that the Angelic choirs of praise to God were reflected in the praises of the Qumran community.

They saw themselves as praising God with the "tongues of Angels". A similar idea can be found in

the Testament Of Job, which also uses the term "tongues of Angels" to describe how the praises of

Job's daughters matched those of the Angels in Heaven. These two apocryphal writings include

many phrases which are used by Paul in his argument against how the Corinthians were abusing the

idea of 'speaking in tongues': "understand all mysteries (1 Cor. 13:2)... in a spirit speaks mysteries

(1 Cor. 14:2)... speaking unto God (1 Cor. 14:2)... sing with the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:15)... bless with

the spirit (1 Cor. 14:16)... hath a psalm (1 Cor. 14:26)". It would seem therefore that the Gentile

Corinthians were influenced by apostate Jewish false teachers, who were encouraging them to use

ecstatic utterance with the claim that they were speaking with "tongues of Angels". And Paul's

321

response is to guide them back to the purpose of the gift of tongues- which was to preach in foreign

languages. My point in this context is that even in the Gentile church at Corinth, there was

significant influence from Jewish false teachers. So it's no surprise to find that in the area of the

nature and person of the Lord Jesus, which was the crucial issue in the new religion of Christianity,

there would also be such influence by Jewish thinking.

14:5 All the Corinthian Christians could have been prophets, all could have spoken with tongues (1

Cor. 14:1,5)- but the reality was that they didn‘t all rise up to this potential, and God worked

through this, in the sense that He ‗gave‘ some within the body to be prophets and tongue speakers (1

Cor. 12:28-30). He works in the body of His Son just the same way today, accommodating our

weaknesses and lack of realization of our potentials, and yet still tempering the body together to be

functional. The fact we fail to realize our potentials doesn‘t mean God quits working with us.

14:8 The Spirit likens public speaking within the church to the sounding of a trumpet. And "If the

trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? (i.e. for the day of the

Lord? or the daily spiritual strife?). So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue significant words,

how shall it be known (understood) what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air" (1 Cor. 14:8,9

A.V.mg.). One wonders how much 'speaking into the air' goes on from church platforms today. The

Old Testament use of 'trumpet' language relates to the following ideas:

- To prepare for war

- To indicate the need to move on

- Convicting others of sin (Is. 58:1; Jer. 4:19)

- Warning of invaders (Ez. 33:3-6)

- A proclamation of the urgency to prepare for the day of the Lord (Joel 2:1)

- The certainty of salvation and God's response to prayer: "Ye shall blow an alarm with the

trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God (Old Testament idiom for 'your

prayers will be answered'), and ye shall be saved" (Num. 10:9).

All of these elements ought to feature in the work of our twenty first century priests.

14:12 Paul seems to want to inculcate the spirit of ambition in preaching when he told Corinth that

they should be ambitious to gain those Spirit gifts which would be most useful in public rather than

private teaching of the word (1 Cor. 14:1,12). In similar vein Paul commends those who were

ambitious (from the right motives) to be bishops (1 Tim. 3:1). Perhaps men like Jephthah (Jud. 11:9)

and Samson (14:4) were not wrong to seek to be the judges who delivered Israel from the

Philistines.

14:20- see on Mt. 18:2; 1 Cor. 1:19.

14:21 The New Testament has examples of our being expected to deduce things which at first

glance we might find somewhat demanding. 1 Cor. 14:21 rebukes the Corinthians for speaking to

each other in languages which their brethren didn‘t understand. Paul considered that they were

immature in their understanding because they hadn‘t perceived that Is. 28:11,12 states that it will be

the Gentile non-believers who will speak to God‘s people in a language they don‘t understand.

14:21,22 The primacy of preaching to Israel is reflected in Paul‘s reasoning in 1 Cor. 14:21,22. He

reasons that the Law had foretold that one of Israel‘s punishments was that they would be spoken to

in languages which they did not understand; and Paul applies this to the gift of speaking in foreign

languages. He concludes: ―Wherefore tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that

believe not… but if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not…‖. The major example

of speaking in tongues was of course to the Jews in Acts 2. ―Them that believe not‖ are clearly the

Jews, in Paul‘s thinking. And Paul‘s concern is that the Jews should be preached to in languages

which they understood, rather than ‗rubbing in‘ their curse for disobedience by speaking to them in

languages they didn‘t understand. His whole thinking is based around the assumption that our

priority in preaching is to the Jews.

322

14:23- see on 1 Cor. 1:2.

The missionary drive of Paul was such that he saw in every outsider a potential insider, rather than

merely a person to be separate from. Thus 1 Cor. 14:23 implies that the early ecclesial meetings

were open for passers by to casually attend; indeed, the breaking of bread seems to have been used

as a means of public witness ―to shew [proclaim / preach] the Lord‘s death‖ and His coming again.

Paul likewise warned the Corinthians that only a church which was manifestly united, with each

member using his gifts in an orderly, sensitive and respectful way… only such a church could

convict the unbeliever of Truth (1 Cor. 14:23 and context). And this was all building on the Lord‘s

clear statements in John 17- that the united church would lead to all men knowing of His grace and

truth. This is why the Acts record describes the spectacular growth of the early church in the same

breath as noting the intense unity and ―all things common‖ between the believers. The mass

conversions stopped after the politics of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and the division over

welfare matters in Acts 6. While that incredible and genuine unity prevailed, converts were made by

the thousand.

14:23-25 1 Cor. 14:23-25 seems to imply that unbelievers came into house churches and ought to

have been so deeply impressed that they declared that ―God is in you of a truth‖. They were to be

the living exemplification of how, as the Lord had prayed in John 17, the witness of Christian unity

ought to be enough to convert the world. We need to give His words there their true weight. To see

slaves and masters, men and women, Jew and Gentile, all sitting at the same table celebrating their

salvation in the same Lord, with offices of leadership and responsibility distributed according to

spiritual rather than social qualifications… this would‘ve been astounding to the Mediterranean

world of the first century. The way men mixed with women and the poor with the rich would‘ve

been especially startling.

14:24- see on Heb. 11:7.

Whenever we come before the call of God in His word, whenever we hear the ‗judgments‘ of God,

we effectively come before His judgment. 1 Cor. 14:24 speaks of those who hear the prophesied

word of God as being ―judged‖ and convicted, and the secrets of their hearts being made manifest,

just as they will be at the final judgment. Indeed Paul uses the same words in 1 Cor. 4:5 to describe

what will happen at judgment day, and repeats them in 1 Cor. 14:25 about what happens when a

man in this life is ‗judged‘ by God‘s word.

14:25- see on 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 9:11.

I‘ve pointed out elsewhere how Paul so often alludes to and further interprets the words of the Lord

Jesus. In Mk. 4:22 the Lord says: "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything

been secret, but that it should come to light". Paul‘s inspired allusions to this can be found as

follows: 1 Cor 4.5: "who will bring to light the secrets of darkness and will make public the

purposes of the heart"; Rom 2.16: "God judges the secrets of people, according to my gospel

through Jesus Christ"; and, significantly for our context, 1 Cor 14.25: "The secrets of his heart are

made public / revealed". The context of 1 Cor. 14 is of behaviour at the memorial meeting,

following on from Paul‘s concerns about this in 1 Cor. 11 and 12. The point of the connections is

this: As the secret / hidden matters of the heart will be judged at the last day, so they are revealed at

the memorial meeting. For there, we stand before the cross, and the hidden thoughts of our hearts

are revealed.

14:28 Those who had the gift of tongues should only have used it to edify others, speaking

intelligible words publicly; but Paul was prepared to allow the Corinthians to speak in tongues to

themselves (1 Cor. 14:28), although this seems to go against the tenor of his previous explanation of

the ideal use of that gift. See on 1 Cor. 7:11.

323

14:29 How did it come about that the early church knew which books were inspired and which

weren‘t? Paul and Peter were aware that there would be false prophets within the early church as

well as true ones (2 Pet. 2:1). These false prophets wrote down their false teachings and claimed

they were inspired. So there had to be a system of deciding whether a prophet was true, or false.

There was a Holy Spirit gift which enabled the early church to ‗discern the spirits‘- to know for sure

who was inspired and who wasn‘t (1 Cor. 12:10; 1 Jn. 4:1). 1 Cor. 14:29 suggests that as soon as a

person claimed to be ‗prophesying‘ from God, then the person with the gift of discerning spirits was

to be present with them and to confirm their words. And Paul goes on to say that anyone who

doesn‘t submit to this, doesn‘t really have the Holy Spirit gifts.

14:31- see on Eph. 1:22.

14:33- see on 1 Cor. 1:2.

14:34- see on 1 Cor. 7:17.

As I understand 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12 and basic OT precedent, a sister was not to teach brothers

at the memorial meeting, which appears the context here in 1 Cor. 14. However, it is evident that

women did possess the gift of teaching by 'prophecy' in other contexts:

- To teach other women after the pattern of Elizabeth teaching Mary, and Miriam the women of

Israel- both by the gift of prophecy (cp. Tit.2:3,4). The reference in 1 Tim. 2:9 to how women

should ―also‖ pray publicly in an appropriate way suggests that there was an organised ‗sisters

class‘ movement in the early church. It has been observed: ―Where women were kept secluded in

Greek society, sisters would be the only ones who could teach them. Teaching by brethren would be

difficult in such circumstances‖.

- To teach in 'Sunday Schools' (there is ample Old Testament precedent for women teaching

children).

- To teach unbelievers. This clearly occurred in the early church. Euodia and Syntyche had

―laboured side by side‖ with Paul in the work of the Gospel (Phil. 4:2,3 NIV). Priscilla helped

Aquila teach Apollos the Gospel (Acts 18:26). At least eight of the sisters mentioned in Romans 16

are described as workers / labourers. Philip‘s seven daughters were prophetesses- presumably not

speaking the word to baptized brethren, but either to the world or to other sisters.

There's even evidence that there was an organized women's missionary movement in the early

church. Clement of Alexandria commented: "The Apostles, giving themselves without respite to the

work of evangelism... took with them women, not as wives but as sisters, to share in their mnistry to

women living at home: by their agency the teaching of the Lord reached the women's quarters

without raising suspicion".

All these references to women in the early church teaching would have been anathema to many of

the surrounding cultures in which the Gospel spread in the first century: ―Not only the arm, but the

voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being

heard…she should speak to or through her husband‖ (Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom 31-32).

Likewise the encouragement for a woman to ―learn in silence‖ was a frontal attack on the position

that a woman‘s duty was to follow the religion of her husband and concern herself with domestic

duties rather than religious learning. The way the Lord commended Mary rather than Martha for her

choice to learn and her rejection of domesticity similarly challenged the prevailing gender

perception. There is no doubt that a 1st century Christian woman was far more liberated than in any

other contemporary religion. In our societies too, our sisters mustn‘t concern themselves only with

domestic duties.

14:35 A woman was to keep silent and ask her husband [Gk. ‗man‘] ‗at [a] home‘ if she had any

questions (1 Cor. 14:35 Gk.). Generations of mystified yet Godly women have read that verse and

thought ‗But I don‘t have a man at home to ask. I‘m not even married‘- or ‗But my hubbie doesn‘t

know a thing about the Bible!‘. Read in the context of a house church scenario, it makes perfect

324

sense. The women weren‘t to interrupt the combined gatherings with disruptively asked questions

from the floor. They were to ask the elders back in their house churches. And that‘s why the Greek

in 1 Cor. 14:35 strictly makes a distinction, between the woman not speaking / publicly asking

questions in the church, but asking the brethren in a house [church].

14:38 Having explained the truth about Holy Spirit gifts, Paul comments: ―But if any man be

ignorant, let him be ignorant‖ (1 Cor. 14:38). This recalls his comment in 1 Cor. 11:16 about head

coverings: ―But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches

of God‖. Paul seems to allow for the possibility of some in the church remaining in disagreement

with his inspired teaching. His desire, it seems, was to state Divine truth and not to cause division in

the ecclesia by insisting that all he said about these procedural issues in church life should be

enforced at all costs. Considering he was inspired, this is quite some concession.

15:1 The classic chapter about the resurrection of body, 1 Cor. 15, is also about the resurrection of

Jesus. And it is not just a doctrinal treatise which Paul throws in to his letter to the Corinthians. It

must be viewed in the context of the entire letter. He has been talking about the correct use of the

body- not abusing it, defiling it, in whatever way. And he has spoken specifically about sexual

issues. And then in summary, at the end of his letter, he speaks at such length about the resurrection

of the body. Seeing that God intends resurrecting our body, our body means so much to Him that

Christ died and rose again to enable our bodily resurrection, therefore it matters a lot what we do

with our body right now!

15:2 - see on 1 Cor. 11:2.

15:3-7- see on Lk. 23:55.

15:4 raised on the third day – this is a quotation from the LXX of Hos. 6:2; is this ―the scripture‖

which Paul has in mind?

15:5 - see on Mt. 17:1; Mk. 16:9.

The graciously unrecorded appearing of the risen Lord to Peter (1 Cor. 15:5; Lk. 24:34) may have

involved the Lord simply appearing to Him, without words. It was simply the assurance that was

there in the look on the face of the Lord.

Mary was the first to see the risen Lord (Mt. 28:1; Lk. 24:10; Jn. 20:1). But Paul speaks in 1 Cor.

15:5 as if Peter was the first witness of the risen Jesus. From his other writings and practice, it‘s

evident that Paul wasn‘t simply ‗anti-women‘. But here he‘s surely making another concession to

weakness- for in the first century world, the witness of a woman wasn‘t acceptable. And so Paul

speaks of the first man who saw the resurrected Lord, rather than mention Mary.

15:6 One of the features of newly baptized converts is that they are generally young- often under 25.

There are many Biblical examples for young people. The very first converts of the early church

were comprised largely of the same age group- and yes, it's possible to Biblically prove this. 1 Cor.

15:6 states that the majority of the 500 brethren who saw the risen Lord Jesus were still alive when

Paul wrote to Corinth, about 25 -30 years later. Seeing that life expectancy in first century Palestine

was around 50, it would follow that the vast majority of those first witnesses of the risen Lord were

under 25.

15:8 When Paul speaks of his sinfulness and weakness, it is nearly always in the context of writing

about the privilege and wonder of our commission to preach Christ. He humbly wonders at the trust

God places in him, to entrust him with the Gospel. He senses a privilege and responsibility in

having been entrusted with the Gospel, to the extent that he can say that his preaching is done more

by the grace of God he has received than by the natural Paul (1 Cor. 15:8-10).

The whole idea of conversion and changing, even transforming, ones basic personality was deeply

unpopular in the culture against which the Gospel was first preached in the first century. Ben

Witherington comments: "Ancients did not much believe in the idea of personality change or

325

development. Or at least they did see such change- a conversion, for example- as a good thing; it

was rather the mark of a deviant, unreliable person... Greco-Roman culture valued stability and

constancy of character... the virtuous Stoic philosopher was one who "surmises nothing, repents of

nothing, is never wrong, and never changes his opinion"". Of course, this mindset was attractive

because human beings never like changing- we're incredibly conservative. And whilst we may live

amidst an apparent mindset that 'change is cool', we all know how stubborn we are to changing our

basic personality, or even seeing that we need to be transformed. And yet, despise the cultural

background, the Gospel of conversion and radical personal change spread powerfully in the first

century. The radical change in Saul / Paul's life was proclaimed by him as programmatic for all who

truly are converted (1 Tim. 1:16)- and for him, this involved a radical re-socialization, seeing the

world in a quite opposite manner, losing old friends and considering former enemies his beloved

family. Quick, radical, 180 degree change was especially unpopular in the first century- Proselytes,

e.g., had to go through a lengthy process to become such. Yet Paul presents the change in him as

being dramatic and instant on the Damascus road. Perhaps he alludes to how skeptically this was

received by others when he answers the charge that he is an ektroma, a miscarriage, one born too

quickly (1 Cor. 15:8,9). And he says that indeed, this had been the case with him.

15:9- see on 1 Tim. 1:16.

Paul directly connects his experience of grace with his witnessing: ―I am...not meet to be called an

apostle...by the grace of God I am what I am [an apostle / preacher] and his grace which was

bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured [as an apostle, in preaching] more abundantly

than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me‖ (1 Cor. 15:9,10). He surely isn‘t

boasting that he was worked and preached harder than others. Rather Paul sees a direct connection

between the grace of forgiveness that so abounded to him to a greater level than to others, and his

likewise abounding preaching work. He speaks as if a man called ‗The grace of God‘ did the work,

not him. So close was and is the connection between receipt of grace and labour in the Gospel (he

makes the same connection in Eph. 3:8). Note that in the context of 1 Cor. 15, Paul is demonstrating

the reality of the Lord‘s resurrection. Because of it, he received grace and therefore he preached it.

15:10 - see on Acts 23:6.

Gal. 2:20 and 1 Cor. 15:10 show Paul using the phrase ―yet not I but....‖ to differentiate between his

natural and spiritual self. Perhaps he does the same in the only other occurrence of the phrase, in 1

Cor 7:10: ―And unto the married I command, yet not I [the natural Paul], but the Lord [the man

Christ Jesus in the spiritual Paul], Let not the wife depart from her husband‖.

When Paul speaks of how he laboured more abundantly than all, he seems to be making one of is

many allusions back to incidents in the Gospels, this time to Lk. 7:47, where the Lord comments

that Mary loved much, because she was forgiven much. It was as if the Lord didn‘t need to have

knowledge of her sins beamed into Him by a bolt of Holy Spirit; He perceived from her great love

how much she had sinned and been forgiven. Paul really felt that Mary was his example, his pattern.

And so should we feel. The much love which she had for her Lord was, in Paul‘s case, articulated

through preaching Him

We are, in the very end, Yahweh manifested to this world, through our imitation of the Lord Jesus.

Paul was alluding to the Yahweh Name (as he often does) when he wrote: ―... by the grace of God I

am what I am‖ (1 Cor 15:10). Paul was especially chosen to bear the Name (Acts 9:15). ‗Yahweh‘

means all of three things: I am who I am, I was who I was, and I will be who I will be. It doesn‘t

only mean ‗I will be manifested in the future‘ in a prophetic sense; that manifestation has been

ongoing, and most importantly it is going on through us here and now. Paul felt Yahweh‘s insistent

manifestation of the principles of His Name through and in himself and his life‘s work. We are right

now, in who we are, Yahweh‘s witnesses to Himself unto this world, just as Israel were meant to

have been. Thus he felt ―jealous with the jealousy of God‖ over his converts (2 Cor. 11:2); jealousy

326

is a characteristic of the Yahweh Name, and Paul felt it, in that the Name was being expressed

through him and his feelings. His threat that ―I will not spare‖ (2 Cor. 13:2) is full of allusion to

Yahweh‘s similar final threats to an apostate Israel. ―As he is [another reference to the Name] so are

we in this world‖ (1 Jn. 4:17). Appreciating this means that our witness is to be more centred around

who we essentially are than what we do. The fact God‘s Name is carried by us, the righteousness of

it imputed to us, should lead us to a greater awareness of His grace. Paul alludes to how he carried

the Yahweh Name when he says that ―by the grace of God I am what I am‖ (1 Cor. 15:10). And his

response was therefore to labour abundantly. A theme of Malachi is that Israel failed to appreciate

God's Name of Yahweh, and therefore they were half-hearted in their service. They gave the

minimum to God, they were partial in their generosity, because they despised His Name. The

fullness and richness of the Name, of who God is, a God full of grace and truth (Ex. 34:6 RV),

should lead us to a fullness of response. For the sake of the Name, believers labour (Rev. 2:13). To

know the name of Yahweh is an imperative to serve Him (1 Chron. 28:9). The greatness of the

Name should have led to full and costly sacrifices (Mal. 1:6-8,9-11,14; 2:2). Thinking upon the

Name led the faithful to pay their tithes and fellowship with each other (Mal. 3:6,10). Giving unto

Yahweh the glory due to His Name is articulated through giving sacrifice (Ps. 96:8).

There is an interplay between God‘s calling of men, and human participation in that outreach. The

case of Paul exemplifies this. Without the vital work of Ananias, he wouldn‘t have been able- in one

sense- to come to Christ. And yet it was God who called Paul. ‗Ananias‘ means ‗the grace of God‘.

And several times Paul alludes to this, saying that ―By [Gk. ‗on account of‘] the grace of God [i.e.

Ananias] I am what I am‖ (1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:14). His conversion was by

both God and Ananias. And thus we see the seamless connection in every conversion between

God‘s role, and that of the preacher.

15:14 He preached, and so the Corinthians believed (1 Cor. 15:11). ―Our preaching‖ and ―your

faith‖ are paralleled in 1 Cor. 15:14.

Because Christ rose, we have not believed and preached "in vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). Because He rose,

therefore "awake to righteousness and sin not" (15:34)- for He is our representative. We labour for

Him because our faith in His resurrection is not ―in vain". Our faith in His resurrection is not in vain

(:2,14), and our labour is therefore not in vain (:58) because it is motivated by His rising again. The

grace of being able to believe in the resurrection of Jesus meant that Paul "laboured abundantly"

(:10). And he can therefore bid us follow his example- of labouring abundantly motivated by the

same belief that the Lord rose (:58)

15:20 We are the firstfruits (Rev. 14:14), and yet in some ways the Lord Jesus was the firstfruits (1

Cor. 15:20,23). Because we are in Him, and because God sees the gap between His exaltation and

ours as irrelevant, we are called "the firstfruits" too. This is why Rom. 1:4 Gk. and 2 Cor. 5:14,15

RSV speaks as if ultimately there is only one resurrection: that of the Lord Jesus, in which we had a

part as being in Him. The appearing of Christ is paralleled with our appearing with Him in glory

(Col. 3:4)- because effectively, when He returns, we will appear with Him in the same moment.

15:21- see on Rev. 20:5.

15:22- see on Jn. 5:21.

15:24 1 Cor.15:24 speaks of "the end" of the Millennium, when he will have put down "all rule and

all authority and power"; he will reign until "all enemies" are subdued. There will still be enemies of

Christ throughout the Millennium; and there will also be human rulers and powers opposed to Him,

to some degree, until they are finally subdued at "the end" of the Millennium. As Solomon's reign

featured local rulers still existing in surrounding lands, so there is reason to think that Christ's

Kingdom will still feature local human rulers of some kind, who may not be forced to be subject to

Him. It takes time for the little stone to destroy the kingdoms of men, and totally establish God's

Kingdom. Zeph.3:19 speaks of the Jews getting glory and praise in every nation which have

327

persecuted them. The lands of their dispersion, Russia, Germany etc., will then recognize the

spiritual status of God's people. This in itself implies that humanity will not be one homogeneous

mass. The nations will decide to go up to worship God at Jerusalem (Zech.14:16); hinting at some

kind of high level national decision by their leaders, as well as the individual desire of ordinary

people from all nations?

15:26 As in our own day, literature and thought of Bible times tried to minimize death. Yet in both

Old and New Testaments, death is faced for what it is. Job 18:14 calls it "the king of terrors"; Paul

speaks of death as the last and greatest enemy (1 Cor. 15:26). Humanity lives all their lives "in fear

of death" (Heb. 2:17). Facing death for what it is imparts a seriousness and intensity to human life

and endeavour, keeps our sense of responsibility to God paramount, and the correct functioning of

conscience all important. We see this in people facing death; but those who've grasped Bible truth

about death ought to live like this all the time, rejoicing too that we have been delivered from it.

15:27 In the end, all the enemies of Jesus will be placed "under His footstool" (Acts 2:35 etc.). Yet

we were all His enemies, due to the alienation with Him caused by our sin (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21).

The Lord's footstool is the place where His people are figuratively located, praising Him there (Ps.

99:5; 132:7; Lam. 2:1). Ultimately, all things will be subjected under Jesus, placed at the Lord's

footstool, under His feet (1 Cor. 15:27). Submission to Him is therefore the ultimate end of both the

righteous and the wicked; the difference being, that the righteous submit to Him now, rather than in

the rejection and final exaltation of the Lord over them in the condemnation process.

15:28 Then God will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), through the full expression of His Name. But

Eph. 1:23 says that right now, all the fullness of God fills "all in all" in the church; in other words

we should now be experiencing something of that total unity which will then be physically manifest

throughout all creation.

Eph.4:8 states that Jesus ascended in order to give the Spirit gifts to men, as He stressed in His

discourse in the Upper Room. Then v.10 says that He ascended "that He might fill (s.w. Him that

filleth all in all with the fullness, Eph.1:23) all things" (the saints). Note in passing how the phrase

"all things" and "all in all" are used about the saints.The latter phrase is used solely in this context of

the saints (Col.3:11 is a good example), and this is how we should read 1 Cor.15:28 "God may be

all in all"- i.e. that God may be manifested completely in all His saints (not just 'in all creation

generally'), who lived both before and during the Millenium. So the Spirit, in its' manifestation in

the gifts or the word, was in order for us to be filled, to come, v.13, to the "stature of the fullness of

Christ"- which is God's fullness.

15:30 Lk. 8:23 = 1 Cor. 15:30. Paul felt that if he gave up his faith, he'd be like those faithless

disciples in the storm on Galilee.

Paul found that every hour of his life, he was motivated to endure by Christ‘s resurrection (1 Cor.

15:30); this was how deep was his practical awareness of the power of that most basic fact.

15:31 ―I protest by that glorying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily‖

(1 Cor. 15:31 RV). By this he perhaps means that because he was daily crucified with Christ, he was

thereby able to rejoice in them; to overcome the pain and hurt which their treatment of him would

naturally give rise to, because he could be another person. That new person could rejoice in the

Corinthians and view them so positively.

Paul could say that he died daily (1 Cor. 15:31); and out of each death, there comes forth new life.

For His resurrection life, the type of life that He lived and lives, becomes manifest in our mortal

flesh right now (2 Cor. 4:11).

15:32- see on Is. 22:13; Rev. 19:10.

328

Paul quotes Solomon's words in Ecc. 2:24 as the words of those who have no faith that there will be

a resurrection (1 Cor. 15:32). The rich fool likewise disbelieved the resurrection, and his words also

allude to those of Solomon (Lk. 12:19 = Ecc. 2:24; 11:9).

15:34- see on 1 Cor. 4:14.

We died and rose with Christ, if we truly believe in His representation of us and our connection with

Him, then His freedom and sense of conquest will be ours; as the man guilty of blood was to see in

the death of the High Priest a representation of his own necessary death, and thereafter was freed

from the limitations of the city of refuge (Num. 35:32,33). Because Christ really did rise again, and

we have a part in that, we must therefore abstain from sin, quit bad company and labour with the

risen, active Lord (1 Cor. 15:34,58).

One of the greatest false doctrines of all time is the trinity- which claims that there are three

"persons" in a Godhead. Trinitarian theologians borrowed a word- persona in Latin, porsopon in

Greek- which was used for the mask which actors wore on stage. But for us, God doesn't exist in

personas. He exists, as God the Father. And we practice the presence of that God. The real, true

God, who isn't acting, projecting Himself through a mask, playing a role to our eyes; the God who is

so crucially real and alive, there at the other end of our prayers, pulling at the other end of the cord...

What we know of Him in His word is what and who He really is. It may not be all He is, but it is all

the same the truth of the real and living God. And this knowledge should be the most arresting thing

in the whole of our existence. So often the prophets use the idea of "knowing God" as an idiom for

living a life totally dominated by that knowledge. The new covenant which we have entered is all

about 'knowing' Yahweh. And Jer. 31:34 comments: "They shall all know me… for I will forgive

their iniquity". The knowledge of God elicits repentance, real repentance; and reveals an equally

real forgiveness. It is possible for those in Christ to in practice not know God at all. Thus Paul

exhorted the Corinthian ecclesia: "Awake to righteousness and sin not: for some have no knowledge

of God" (1 Cor. 15:34 RV). The knowledge and practice of the presence of God ought to keep us

back from sin. Ez. 43:8 RV points out how Israel were so wrong to have brought idols into the

temple: "in their setting of their threshold by my threshold, and their door post beside my door post,

and there was but the wall between me and them". How close God was ought to have made them

quit their idolatry. But their cognizance of the closeness of God was merely theoretical. They didn't

feel nor respond to the wonder of it. And truly, He is not far from every one of us.

15:35 Where and when and how the judgments of Father and Son are finally manifested and

outplayed isn't the most important thing. The essence of their judgment is what needs to concern us.

Tragically we as a community have all too often been like the foolish questioner Paul envisages in 1

Cor. 15:35; he was preoccupied with how the body would come out of the grave, rather than on the

essence of the fact that as we sow now, as we now allow God's word to take root in us, so we will

receive in the nature of the eternal existence which we will be given at the judgment. I'm not saying

that how we are raised etc. is unimportant; but it's importance hinges around its practical import for

us. All to easily we can bat these questions around with no attention to their practical relevance for

us.

15:38 The word of God / the Gospel is as seed (1 Pet. 1:23); and yet we believers end our lives as

seed falling into the ground, which then rises again in resurrection to be given a body and to

eternally grow into the unique type of person which we are now developing (1 Cor. 15:38). The

good seed which is sown is interpreted by the Lord both as the word of God (Lk. 8:11), and as ―the

children of the Kingdom‖ (Mt. 13:38). This means that the word of the Gospel becomes flesh in us

as it did in our Lord.

15:43- see on 1 Cor. 8:9.

15:45 Be aware that the original writers didn't have quotation marks or brackets (consider where

Paul might have used them in 1 Cor. 15:45-47!).

329

There was a first century Jewish speculation that Adam would be re-incarnated as Messiah. Paul's

references to Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:45-47 are very careful to debunk that

idea. Paul emphasized that no, Adam and Jesus are different, Jesus is superior to Adam, achieved

what Adam didn't, whilst all the same being "son of man". And this emphasis was effectively a

denial by Paul that Jesus pre-existed as Adam, or as anyone. For Paul counters these Jewish

speculations by underlining that the Lord Jesus was human. The hymn of Phil. 2:6-11 is really a

setting out of the similarities and differences between Adam and Jesus- and unlike Adam, Jesus did

not even consider equality with God as something to be grasped for (Gen. 3:5). The record of the

wilderness temptations also appears designed to highlight the similarities and differences between

Adam and Jesus- both were tempted, Adam eats, Jesus refuses to eat; both are surrounded by the

animals and Angels (Mk. 1:13).

15:47- see on Mt. 3:7.

The apocryphal Jewish Book of Enoch held that the "Son of man" figure personally pre-existed (1

Enoch 48:2-6; 62:6,7). The idea of personal pre-existence was held by the Samaritans, who believed

that Moses personally pre-existed. Indeed the idea of a pre-existent man, called by German

theologians the urmensch , was likely picked up by the Jews from the Persians during the captivity.

Christians who believed that Jesus was the prophet greater than Moses, that He was the "Son of

man", yet who were influenced by Jewish thinking, would therefore come to assume that Jesus also

personally pre-existed. And yet they drew that conclusion in defiance of basic Biblical teaching to

the opposite. Paul often appears to allude to these Jewish ideas, which he would've been familiar

with, in order to refute and correct them. Thus when he compares Jesus and Adam by saying: "The

first man is of the earth, the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:45-47), he is alluding to the idea

of Philo that there was an earthly and heavenly man; and one of the Nag Hammadi documents On

The Origin Of The World claims that "the first Adam of the light is spiritual... the second Adam is

soul-endowed". Paul's point is that the "second Adam" is the now-exalted Lord Jesus in Heaven,

and not some pre-existent being. Adam was "a type of him who was to come" (Rom. 5:14); the one

who brought sin, whereas Christ brought salvation. Paul was alluding to and correcting the false

ideas- hence he at times appears to use language which hints of pre-existence. But reading his

writings in context shows that he held no such idea, and was certainly not advocating the truth of

those myths and documents he alluded to.

15:49- see on Col. 1:15.

When Paul writes of our being transformed into ―the image of Christ‖ (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49) he

seems to have in mind Ez. 1:28 LXX: ―The appearance of the image of the glory of the Lord‖. ―The

glory‖ in Ezekiel is personified- it refers to a person, and I submit that person was a prophetic

image of Jesus Christ. But Paul‘s big point is that we each with unveiled face have beheld the

Lord‘s glory (2 Cor. 3:16- 4:6); just as he did on the Damascus road, and just as Ezekiel did. It

follows, therefore, that not only is Paul our example, but our beholding of the Lord‘s glory propels

us on our personal commission in the Lord‘s service, whatever it may be. See on Acts 9:3.

15:50- see on 1 Cor. 5:5.

15:52- see on 1 Thess. 4:17.

"In a moment... the dead shall be raised incorruptible (i.e.) we shall all be changed" (1 Cor. 15:52).

"The dead" here refers to the group of dead believers who will be found worthy. Their immortality

will be granted to them together, as a group, "in a moment". Yet in a sense we will each receive our

reward immediately after our interview with the Lord- another powerful indicator that the meaning

of time must be collapsed at the day of judgment. The words of Mt. 25:34 are spoken collectively:

"Come, ye (not 'thou', singular) blessed... ye gave me meat... then shall the righteous answer him,

saying, Lord, When saw we thee an hungered...".

330

"Raised incorruptible" (1 Cor. 15:52)

The One Body of believers has been divided over the interpretation of this passage. Some see in it

clear teaching that we emerge from the grave immortal, and therefore the judgment is only for the

dividing up of rewards rather than the granting of immortality to mortal bodies.

Biblical Objections

There are a number of objections to this interpretation from other parts of Scripture:

- "We shall all be changed... the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For

this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality... then shall be

brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15:51-54). The

rebuilding / raising up incorruptible is the "change", the mortal putting on immortality, death being

swallowed up. All these phrases are rather uncomfortable within a scenario of immortal emergence

from the grave. If the mortal bodies of saints are even further humbled before the piercing analysis

of the judgment seat and then swallowed up in victory, clothed upon with immortality- these words

find their natural fulfillment.

- Paul speaks of us being clothed upon with immortality at the judgment (2 Cor. 5:2,4,10 RV), as if

we exist in a form which lacks the clothing of immortality, but is then 'clothed upon'.

- At the Lord's coming, our vile body will be changed to be like His glorious body (Phil. 3:20,21).

- God will quicken our mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11). The mortal bodies of Paul and the Romans have

yet to be quickened; therefore they must be resurrected mortal and then quickened. However, it

could be that Rom. 8:11 is one of several expectations of the second coming within the lifetime of

the first century believers.

- At the judgment seat, we will receive a recompense for the things we have done, in a bodily form

(2 Cor. 5:10). Of the flesh we will reap corruption, of the spirit: life everlasting (Gal. 6:7,8).

- We will be justified and be condemned by our account at the day of judgment- not at resurrection

(Mt. 12:36,37).

- The nobleman came, called his servants, reckoned with them, and only then was taken from the

slothful servant even that which he seemed to have- at the judgment, not the resurrection (Lk.

19:12-26). The unprofitable are cast into outer darkness at the judgment, not the resurrection.

- The sheep go away into life eternal and the goats go away into death- after the judgment process.

It is hard to square this with immortal emergence before the judgment.

- "Come, inherit the Kingdom" (Mt. 25:34) is spoken at the end of the judgment process. Only then

will the faithful inherit the Kingdom and thereby receive immortality.

- The Lord will raise up the dead and quicken (i.e. immortalise) whom He will of those He has

raised up (Jn. 5:21).

- 1 Thess. 4:17 teaches that the dead are raised and go with the living to the judgment, where sheep

and goats are divided finally. It seems inappropriate for already immortalised believers to be judged

and rewarded.

- When a man is tried (always elsewhere translated "approved") he will receive the crown on life-

the crown which will be given at the last day (James 1:12 cp. 2 Tim. 4:8). The approval is surely not

in the physical fact of resurrection- for the rejected will also experience this.

- If immortality is given at the resurrection rather than at the judgment, we would have to read

'resurrection' as a one off act; and yet it evidently refers to a process, something more than the act of

coming out of the grave. The fact there will not be marriage "in the resurrection" is proof enough of

this- it refers to more than the act of coming out of the grave. Also, if immortality is not given at the

judgment, this creates a problem in respect of those who are alive at the Lord's return. Are we to

believe that they will just be made immortal in a flash when the Lord comes, with no judgment?

- Immortal emergence inevitably means that men live with no fear of judgment to come. And yet the

very fact of future judgment is an imperative to repentance (Acts 17:31; 2 Pet. 3:11). Admittedly,

331

there is the danger that judgment can be over-emphasised to the point that God seems passive now,

reserving all judgment until the last day. Both extremes must be avoided.

What Does It Mean?

Taking the passage as it stands, it is quite possible to place it alongside several other Pauline

passages which speak of the whole process of resurrection-judgment-immortalization as one act.

This may be because he sometimes writes as if he assumes his readership will all be worthy of

acceptance into the Kingdom, and will not be rejected. If we see our brethren as truly in Christ and

therefore acceptable with Him, clothed in His righteousness, and seeing we cannot judge in the

sense of condemning them, this ought to be a pattern for us. Judgment in the sense of condemnation

will not pass upon those who will be in the Kingdom, although this doesn't mean that therefore they

will not stand before the judgment seat of Christ. The Gospels likewise speak of both the

resurrection and the judgment process as occurring at "the last day" (Jn. 11:24; 12:48); as if the

"resurrection" includes the judgment process. The way 'the resurrection' can be 'better' or 'worse'

(Heb. 11:35) and of two kinds (Jn. 5:29) further indicates that the term cannot be limited to just the

emergence from the ground.

However, there is another reason why Paul wrote as he did. We have shown in Appendix 1 that the

meaning of time will be collapsed at the period of the Lord's return and judgment. It is therefore

quite possible that in terms of real time, the resurrection-judgment-immortalization process will take

place in a micro second. To an onlooker, there would appear to be immortal emergence (cp. how the

record of creation is described as an onlooker would have seen it). But if we were to break the

process down, there would be the resurrection, coming forth as a mortal body, gathering to

judgment, discussion with the judge, giving of reward, immortalization. Paul saw the trumpet blast

as the signal of both the call to judgment (1 Thess. 4:17) and also the moment of glorification (1

Cor. 15:52).

Against the proposition that "raised incorruptible" in 1 Cor. 15:52 means an immortal emergence in

theological terms, the following points should be considered:

- Paul doesn't say 'the dead are resurrected incorruptible', but rather that they are raised (Gk. egeiro)

incorruptible. If he referred to actual resurrection, he would surely have used the word anastasis.

But he doesn't. Egeiro is used of rising up from sickness (Mk. 1:37), rising in judgment (Mt. 12:42),

the raising up of men as prophets (Mt. 11:11), raising up a Saviour (Lk. 1:69), the raising up of

Pharaoh to do God's will (Rom. 9:17), to rise up against, to raise up a building. These are all

processes leading to a completed action, not a simple one time action. Therefore it is not

unreasonable to interpret Paul's words as does Bro. John Thomas: 'the dead shall be rebuilt

incorruptible', referring to the whole process rather than just the coming out of the ground.

- The seed is sown "a natural body" (1 Cor. 15:44)- a psuchikon soma, a living body. This raises a

question as to whether Paul is really talking about a dead body going into the grave and then

coming out immortal. 1 Cor. 15:36 speaks of the seed as being sown, being scattered, right now

(speiro in the active voice). This is almost certainly one of Paul's many allusions back to the

Gospels- this time, to the parable of the sower. The seed is being sown now, and we respond to it.

The seed is sown in the corruption, dishonour and weakness of this present nature (15:42,43). But

that seed ("it") will be raised / rebuilt in an incorruptible, glorious body; this is the power of the seed

of the Gospel.

All this reasoning is in the context of 1 Cor. 15:35,36: "But some man will say, How are the dead

raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool...". To max out on the exact form in which

we emerge from the grave is foolish, Paul says. And yet some of us have done just that. Surely Paul

is saying 'Don't get distracted by this issue as a physicality in itself. The point is, as the seed of the

Gospel is sown in you day by day, so in a corresponding way you will be rebuilt in the glory of the

resurrection. So sow to the spirit, for as you sow you will reap (cp. Gal. 6:7,8)'.

332

15:53 When the Lord spoke of how the faithful will be clothed by Him in a robe (Mt. 22:11; Lk.

15:22), He is connecting with the usage of ―clothing" as a symbol of the covering of righteousness

which He gives, and which also represents the immortality of the Kingdom (1 Cor. 15:53,54; 2 Cor.

5:2-5). The choice of clothing as a symbol is significant; the robe covered all the body, except the

face. The individuality of the believer still remains, in the eyes of Christ. What we sow in this life,

we will receive in the relationships we have in the Kingdom; there will be something totally

individual about our spirituality then, and it will be a reflection of our present spiritual struggles.

This is Paul's point in the parable of the seed going into the ground and rising again, with a new

body, but still related to the original seed which was sown.

15:54- see on Rom. 1:3.

15:57 There were in the early church standard acclamations or doxologies which may reflect

common phrases used in prayers throughout the early brotherhood- just as there are certain phrases

used in prayers throughout the world today. ―Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through

our Lord Jesus Christ‖ is an acclamation that crops in up in some form or other in 1 Cor. 15:57;

Rom. 6:17; 7:25; 2 Cor. 2:14; 8:16; 9:15. Likewise ―God… to whom be glory for ever and ever.

Amen‖ (Gal. 3:15; Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Tim. 1:17).

15:58- see on 2 Cor. 8:7.

The fact we are really and truly witnessing for Jesus, in His Name, doing His work, ought to

endlessly inspire us to unflagging labour in this enterprise. We are to be ―always abounding in the

work of the Lord‖ Jesus, knowing it is never in vain (1 Cor. 15:58). And yet it is the work of

preaching which has just been defined as not being in vain (:14); the more abounding labour is in

the work of preaching (:10). Preaching is the work of the Lord Jesus in that He is working through

us to do His saving work, and therefore we ought to be constantly active in His cause.

His preaching ministry was proportional to the grace he had received, and in this he saw himself as

a pattern to us all (1 Tim. 1:12-16). He makes the connection even more explicit in his argument in

1 Cor. 15:10 and 58: ―His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more

abundantly than they all‖ is then applied to each of us, in the final, gripping climax of his argument:

―Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding [as Paul did] in

the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain‖. Paul says that God‘s

grace to him ―was not in vain‖, in that he laboured more abundantly than any in preaching. Yet

within the same chapter, Paul urges us his readers that our faith and labour is also ―not in vain‖; the

connection seems to be that he responded to grace by labouring in preaching, and he speaks as if

each of the Corinthians likewise will not labour in vain in this way (1 Cor. 15:2,10,58). He clearly

sees himself as a pattern of responding to grace by preaching to others.

16:2- see on Acts 2:45.

16:9 An insight into Paul‘s attitude is revealed in the way he speaks of how a door of preaching

opportunity had been opened to him at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:9). Surely he is alluding to the Lord‘s

words about knocking in prayer, and a door is opened. He had presumably prayed for the

opportunity to spread the word in Ephesus, and he was given the positive answer. We likewise

should be praying systematically for the people in our lives, for unreached nations and peoples. Yet

the language of a door being opened sends us to Acts 14:27, where the response of the Gentiles to

Paul‘s missionary work is likewise spoken of as a door being opened- presumably, meaning that

here was an answer to prayer for response. A door was opened at Troas, we assume also because of

sustained prayer beforehand (2 Cor. 2:12). We must ask whether we really desire the Gospel to

spread; if we do, it will be reflected in our prayer life.

16:15 There is a word play in 1 Cor. 16:15, masked in the translations: the household of Stephanas

‗addicted‘ themselves to the Lord‘s service (Gk. Tasso), and the ecclesia is bidden ―submit‖ (Gk.

Hupotasso) to them. Enthusiastic service by individuals truly influences the whole community.

333

16:19- see on Acts 20:20.

16:20- see on Rom. 16:16.

16:22 Those who departed from the faith didn‘t just drift away; they were formally pronounced

anathema (1 Cor. 16:22), delivered unto the satan of this world. And it follows that within a

community with such tight boundaries, there would be strong identity with each other who were

within those boundaries.

334

2 CORINTHIANS

1:3-7 It seems that hymns developed in the early church, fragments of which are found in the poems

of 2 Cor. 1:3-7; Eph. 1:13,14; 5:14; Phil. 2:6-12; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:4.

1:4 One can recount instances of repetition in the narratives of our own lives. Our experiences

connect with those of Biblical characters- and thus the Biblical records become alive and intensely

personal for each of us. Further, we see similarities in patterns and experiences between our lives

and those of others contemporary with us. This is surely to enable the principle of 2 Cor. 1:4- that if

we suffer anything, it is so that we can mediate comfort to those who suffer as we do. To go into our

shells and not do this not only makes our own sufferings harder, but frustrates the very purpose of

them. The repeating similarities between our lives and those of others also reveal to us that God at

times arranges for us to suffer from our alter ego- persons who behave similarly to us, and who

through those similarities cause us suffering. In this way we are taught the error of our ways, both

past and present. It seems that Jacob the deceiver suffered in this way from Laban the deceiver- in

order to teach him and cause his spiritual growth. For example, as Jacob deceived his blind father

relating to an important family matter, so Laban deceived Jacob in the darkness of the wedding

night. Esau once begged food of Jacob, and he deceived him cruelly. As an old man, Jacob twice

had to beg food from the estranged brother, his own son Joseph. No wonder he so tried not to have

to send his sons to Egypt to beg for food. He was being taught- even after all those years- how Esau

his brother had felt.

1:4 Job was a ―perfect‖ man before the afflictions started; and he is presented as a ‗perfect‘ man at

the end. The purpose of his trials was not only to develop him, but also in order to teach the friends

[and we readers] some lessons. The purpose of our trials too may not only be for our benefit, but for

that of others. If we suffer anything, it is so that we might help others (2 Cor. 1:4). Consider too

how the palsied man was healed by the Lord in order to teach others that Jesus had the power to

forgive sins (Mt. 9:2-6).

Our trials are specially designed so that we may give comfort to others who suffer in essence the

same experiences- and this is how ―our comfort aboundeth through Christ‖ (2 Cor. 1:4,5 RV). He is

the comforter insofar as His brethren minister that comfort which He potentially enables them to

minister. As we partake in the Lord‘s sufferings, so we partake of the comfort which is in Him- but

which is ministered through the loving care of those in Him (2 Cor. 1:7). This is why any attitude of

insularity is totally impossible for the true brother or sister in Christ. Behind every human face,

there is a tragedy behind the brave façade which is put up. Almost everybody has been bruised by

life, and is feeling the pressure of temptation or defeat, depression, loneliness or despair. It‘s true

that some need to be disturbed from their complacency, but the vast majority need above all else to

be given by us the comfort of God‟s love. People, all people (not just our brethren) are desperate for

real comfort and compassion. And it is up to us to mediate it to them.

As Paul makes explicit in 2 Cor. 1:4, if we suffer anything, it is so that ultimately others may be

comforted in our comfort. True Christianity, authentic relationship with God, simply can't be lived

out in isolation, with us asking God for things and Him giving them to us just for us. We need to

discern how others will be affected by our experience of answered prayer, and bear this in mind

when formulating our prayers. And all this is surely the answer to the cynic's complaint that prayer

is essentially selfish. It can be, it too often is; but Biblical prayer is not at all. In words which need

reading twice, Elizabeth O'Connor drives the point home in Journey Outward: "If engagement with

ourselves does not push back horizons so that we see neighbours we did not see before, then we

need to examine the appointments kept with self. If prayer does not drive us into some concrete

involvement at a point of the world's need, then we must question prayer... the inner life is not

nurtured in order to hug to oneself some secret gain". The Psalms have all this as a major theme.

1:5- see on Acts 9:16.

335

1:6 It could be argued that all our experiences are in order that we might be able to give out to

others from our own experience of God's grace (2 Cor. 1:4-6).

1:9 The tragic brevity of life means that "childhood and youth are vanity", we should quit the time

wasting follies of youth or overgrown childhood (and the modern world is full of this), and therefore

too "remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh" (Ecc. 11:10 AVmg.).

Ecclesiastes uses the mortality of man not only as an appeal to work for our creator, but to simply

have faith in His existence. Likewise: "We had the sentence of death in ourselves [" in our hearts we

felt the sentence of death", NIV], that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the

dead" (2 Cor. 1:9). The fact we are going to die, relatively soon, and lie unconscious... drives the

man who seriously believes it to faith in the God of resurrection. It seems that at a time of great

physical distress, Paul was made to realize that in fact he had "the sentence of death" within him, he

was under the curse of mortality, and this led him to a hopeful faith that God would preserve him

from the ultimate "so great a death" as well as from the immediate problems. Death being like a

sleep, it follows that judgment day is our next conscious experience after death. Because death is an

ever more likely possibility for us, our judgment is effectively almost upon us. And we must live

with and in that knowledge.

1:11 The Corinthians ―helped…by prayer for us‖ (2 Cor. 1:11)- as if Paul‘s unaided prayers had less

power than when the Corinthians were praying for him too. Stephen believed this to the point that

he could pray for the forgiveness of his murderers, fully believing God could hear and grant such

forgiveness. Job believed this, in that he prayed God would forgive his children in case they sinned.

The friends mocked this in Job 5:4; 8:4; 17:5 and 20:10, saying that the children of the foolish die

for their own sins, whereas, by implication, Job had figured that his prayers and sacrifices could

gain them forgiveness. Yet in the end, Yahweh stated that Job had understood Him and His

principles right, whereas the friends hadn‘t.

1:12 I‘ve always sensed that the more complex a person, the harder it is for them to be generous.

But we are all commanded to be generous to the Lord‘s cause, knowing that nothing we have is our

own. And I am not only talking to wealthy brethren. All of us have something, and all of us can give

something to our brethren. Consider how the poor believers of the first century such as Corinth

[amongst whom there were not many rich or mighty, Paul reminds them] collected funds for the

poor brethren in Judea. There is a Greek word translated ―simplicity‖ which occurs eight times in

the NT. Five of these are in 2 Corinthians, written as it was in the context of Corinth giving funds

for the Jerusalem poor. Consider how the word is translated:

- Paul had ―simplicity and Godly sincerity‖ (2 Cor. 1:12)

- They had ―liberality‖ (2 Cor. 8:2)

- ―Bountifulness‖ (2 Cor. 9:11)

- Their ―liberal distribution‖ (2 Cor. 9:13)

- He feared lest they be corrupted from ―the simplicity that is in Christ‖ (2 Cor. 11:3).

Evidently Paul saw a link between generosity and the simplicity of the faith in Christ. It doesn‘t

need a lexicon to tell you that this word means both ‗simplicity‘ and also ‗generous‘. The

connection is because the basis for generosity is a simple faith. Not a dumb, blind faith, glossing

over the details of God‘s word. But a realistic, simple, direct conviction. This is why Paul exhorts

that all giving to the Lord‘s cause should be done with ―simplicity‖ (Rom. 12:8- the AVmg.

translates ‗liberally‘). Give, in whatever way, and don‘t complicate it with all the ifs and buts which

our fleshly mind proposes. Paul warns them against false teachers who would corrupt them from

their ―simplicity‖- and yet he usually speaks of ‗simplicity‘ in the sense of generosity. Pure doctrine,

wholeheartedly accepted, will lead us to be generous. False doctrine and human philosophy leads to

all manner of self-complication. Paul was clever, he was smart; but he rejoiced that he lived his life

―in simplicity...by the grace of God‖ (2 Cor. 1:12). If our eye is single (translating a Greek word

related to that translated ‗simple‘), then the whole body is full of light (Mt. 6:22)- and the Lord

336

spoke again in the context of generosity. An evil eye, a world view that is not ‗simple‘ or single, is

used as a figure for mean spiritedness.

Our fear of what others think of us, of their reactions and possible reactions to who we are, to our

words and our actions; our faithless worry about where we will find our food and clothing, how we

will be cared for when we are old, whether our health will fail… all these things detract us from a

simple and direct faith in the basic tenets of the Gospel, which is what should lead us to humility.

―The simplicity that is in Christ… in simplicity and godly sincerity… by the grace of God, we have

had our conversation in the world… [doing our daily work] with singleness [s.w. ‗simplicity‘] of

heart, as unto Christ‖ (2 Cor. 1:12; 11:3; Eph. 6:5,6). Worries about the material things of life, or

deep seated doubt developed during years of atheism or wrong belief… these all so easily distract us

from the simplicity of a true and humbled faith.

1:13

Paul: Victim Of Slander In The Church

Too physically weak to do the job (2 Cor. 10:10)

Underhanded, cunning (2 Cor. 4:2 RSV)

Tampering with God's word (2 Cor. 4:2 RSV)

Not preaching according to the sanction of the Lord Jesus, but inventing things for himself (in the

context of Gentile liberty, Gal. 1:1).

Preaching himself as the saviour, not Christ (2 Cor. 4:5)

Commending himself, showing himself to be so spiritually strong (2 Cor. 3:1)

Trying to build up his own self-image with his listeners as he preached the Gospel (2 Cor. 4:5)

Trying to domineer over his brethren (2 Cor. 1:24; 8:8 Gk.)

Mentally unstable (2 Cor. 5:13)

Causing others to stumble (2 Cor. 6:3)

An imposter (2 Cor. 6:8- in the context, Paul is saying that the fact he is so maligned is a kind of

proof that he really is a genuine worker for the Lord!).

Wronging, corrupting, financially defrauding brethren (2 Cor. 7:2)

Demanding so much money from others that they would become impoverished themselves (2 Cor.

8:13,14 J.B. Phillips)

But not a real apostle, seeing that if he was then he would do as the Lord had bidden and receive

―hire‖ for being a ―labourer‖; if he was worthy, he would have accepted it. The fact he didn‘t

showed he wasn‘t a hard labourer. This was so untrue. It's a real cruel example of slander in the

church.

He only threatened ecclesial discipline but never did anything in practice- he was all talk and no do

(2 Cor. 10:1-6)

What he wrote was in his letters was a contradiction of the person he was in practice (2 Cor. 1:13)

He kept changing his mind over important issues (2 Cor. 1:17-19)

They were offended that Paul didn't take money from them (2 Cor. 11:7 RSV), and yet also grudged

giving money for the Jerusalem Poor Fund because the Corinthian church slandered Paul that he

claimed he was only trying to get the money for himself.

Crafty and a liar, not opening his heart to his brethren (2 Cor. 12:16 cp. 6:11)

Preaching that we can be immoral because God's grace will cover us (Rom. 3:8)

Preached in order to get money and have relationships with women (1 Thess. 2:3-12)

Still secretly preached that circumcision was vital for salvation (Gal. 5:11).

Note: If you can imagine where Paul might have used quotation marks, this helps to reveal certain

phrases which he was probably quoting from their claims. Most of the above slander in the church

was from just one ecclesia (Corinth): one can be certain that there were many other such slanders.

337

1:14 With what measure we give to others in these ways, we will be measured to at the judgment

(Mk. 4:24 and context). 1 Cor. 3:9-15 likewise teaches that the spiritual "work" of "any man" with

his brethren will be proportionate to his reward at the judgment. Paul certainly saw his reward as

proportionate to the quality of his brethren (2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 2:19,20; Phil. 2:16; 4:1).

1:15 It was also the Lord‘s desire that His word should be spread. The neat maps in our Bibles

notwithstanding, it is clear that Paul had no such clear plan of where to found ecclesias. He

preached in Galatia because illness required that he spend some time there, against his original

intention (Gal. 4:13). He was forbidden to preach in Bithynia as he had planned, he fled to Athens

for safety and ended up preaching there, then he fled from there to Corinth (Acts 16:6,7). And it

seems that he was only in transit through Ephesus, but found the people responsive and therefore

continued working there (Acts 18:19). Indeed, his movements were so uncertain that he was open to

the charge of vacillating about his plans (2 Cor. 1:15,18). And yet it has been shown that the places

where Paul founded ecclesias were strategic points, in that they were centres where different

nationalities mixed, where trade routes crossed, where social and religious conditions were better

than elsewhere for the spread of the Gospel. Yet this was not due to any conscious desire of Paul for

this; the Lord overruled this, so that, e.g., from Thessalonica the message sounded out throughout

Asia, due to the many mobile people who heard the Gospel there.

1:17 Not only must we preach because our Lord preached. We must witness as He witnessed. Paul

understood us to have been anointed in a similar way to who Christ was anointed; and thereby we

become witnesses of Him. In this context, he explains that he wasn‘t vague and uncertain in the

matter of preaching; he didn‘t keep vacillating between yes and no because this was not how Jesus

preached- in Him was ―yes!‖ (2 Cor. 1:21,17).

1:18 Paul could tell the Corinthians that his preaching of the word to them ―was not yea and

nay…for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us…was not yea and nay‖

(2 Cor. 1:18,19). Paul‘s preaching was an exact transmission of the person of Jesus; He was not

indecisive, He was positive; and likewise Paul‘s preaching of Him had the same marks. He quotes

this as a counter to the criticism that he was ―yea and nay‖, a man with no sense of truth or decision.

‗If I am a man in Christ, then I will axiomatically act like Him, and therefore this criticism of me

cannot be true‘.

1:19 We are ―in Christ‖ to the extent that we are Christ to this world. In this sense He has in this

world no arms or legs or face than us. ―The Son of God, Jesus Christ, was preached among you

through us, even through me and Silvanus‖ (2 Cor. 1:19 RVmg.). Paul was a placarding of Christ

crucified before the Galatians (Gal. 3:1 Gk.); to the Corinthians he was ―the face of Christ‖ (2 Cor.

2:10 RSV).

Because "God is true", therefore it ought to be axiomatic that our words are true, as those bearing

His Name (so Paul argues in 2 Cor. 1:18; 11:10).

1:20 We know that the promises were confirmed by the death of the Lord; and yet ―all the promises

of God in him are yea, and in him Amen" (2 Cor. 1:20). ―In him" is put for ‗on account of His death

which confirmed them‘. ‗He‘ was His death and His cross. In the preceding verse, Paul has spoken

of ―Christ crucified". He was brought to the cross a man who had already died unto sin; and the very

quick time in which He died reflected how physically worn out His body was, in reflection of how

sin had virtually already been put to death in Him.

The connection between the atonement and faith in prayer is brought out in 2 Cor. 1:20 RSV: ―For

all the promises of God in him are yea. That is, we utter the Amen through him". The promises of

God were confirmed through the Lord‘s death, and the fact that He died as the seed of Abraham,

having taken upon Him Abraham‘s plural seed in representation (Rom. 15:8,9). Because of this,

338

―we utter the Amen through [on account of being in] Him". We can heartily say ‗Amen‘, so be it, to

our prayers on account of our faith and understanding of His atoning work.

1:21 Anointed- see on Acts 13:9.

One big word which keeps cropping up in Ignatius is the Greek bebaion, meaning ‗valid‘. Ignatius

[and others] taught that for service of the Lord to be valid by a believer, it had to be validated

through obedience to the church leadership. They gave his or her service its validity. ―Whatsoever

[the Bishop and presbytery] shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which

ye do may be sure and valid [bebaion]‖ (Smyrneans 8.2). Significantly, Paul addresses this very

issue, using the very same Greek word, and in precisely this context- of justifying his service to God

even though it was not approved / validated by others who thought they were elders: ―He who

validates us [bebaion], along with you [the ordinary members of the flock]… is God, who also

sealed us‖ (2 Cor. 1:21,22). God has validated and called each of us to His service. We don‘t need

approval / validation / authorization from anybody on this earth. Of course we should seek to work

co-operatively with our brethren, for such is obviously the spirit of Christ; neither Paul nor myself

are inciting a spirit of maverick irresponsibility. But he is clearly saying that the idea of needing

authorization / validification from any group of elders in order to minister, preach, break bread and

baptize [which is the context of his writing to the Corinthians] is totally wrong.

1:22- see on 2 Cor. 3:3.

1:23 David speaks of God enthroned in the court of Heaven judging him and yet also maintaining

his right; and yet in the same context, David speaks of how God's throne is prepared for future

judgment, He will minister judgment (Ps. 9:4 cp. 7,8,19). The court of Heaven that was now trying

him would sit again in the last day. Paul does the same when, under 'judgment' by his brethren, he

calls God as a witness right now (2 Cor. 1:23 RSV), several times saying that he spoke "before

God", as if already at judgment day.

1:24 Nobody, not even faithful brethren, can have dominion over our faith; by our own faith we

stand (2 Cor. 1:24, filling in the ellipsis). Solomon exhorts his son to get wisdom, for ―if thou be

wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it" (Prov. 9:12). The

understanding of God we gain from His word, and the result of rejecting it, is so intensely personal.

2:4- see on Rom. 9:3.

2:10- see on Gal. 3:1.

2:10 Paul was a placarding of Christ crucified before the Galatians (Gal. 3:1 Gk.); to the Corinthians

he was ―the face of Christ‖ (2 Cor. 2:10 RSV).

2:12- see on 1 Cor. 16:9.

Frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel'; the Gospel is in

itself something which must be preached if we really have it (Rom. 1:1,9; 16:25; Phil. 1:5 (NIV),12;

2:22; 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:8; 2:8). The fact we have been given the

Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. ―When I came to Troas for the Gospel of Christ‖ (2

Cor. 2:12 RV) has the ellipsis supplied in the AV: ―to preach Christ‘s Gospel‖ [although there is no

Greek word in the original matching ‗preach‘] .

2:13 Not only on a personal level, but also collectively, we can limit the amount and extent of

witness. Thus Paul had a door opened to him to preach in Troas, but the ecclesial problems in

Corinth that were so sapping his energy meant he had to leave those opportunities inadequately used

(2 Cor. 2:12,13 RSV).

2:14 ―There is none (not one) that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). But somehow we are "always",

time and again, caused to triumph in Christ (2 Cor. 2:14), participating day by day (and hour by

hour at times) in His triumphant victory procession (so the allusion to the Roman 'triumph' implies).

339

The spirit of ambition shouldn't just be an occasional flare in our lives; it should characterize our

whole way of living and thinking.

2:14,15 The preacher is his message; if the doctrines of the Gospel are truly in us, then we ourselves

will naturally be a witness to it in our lives. The Gospel is the savour of Christ; and yet we

personally are the savour (2 Cor. 2:14,15); we are the epistle and Gospel of Christ (2 Cor. 3:3).

2:14-17 2 Cor. 2:14-17 seems to have a series of allusions back to Mary‘s anointing of the Lord:

2 Cor. 2 Mary’s anointing

Maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by

us in every place (:14)

The house filled with the smell of Mary‘s

anointment

For we are the smell of Christ (:15) in our

witness of Him to the world

Mary must have had the same smell of the same

perfume on her, as was on Jesus whom she had

anointed with it

Making merchandise of the word of God (:17

RVmg.)

As Judas coveting the anointing oil for

mercenary gain

The simple point of the allusions is that we like Mary are spreading the smell of Christ to the world;

she is our pattern for witness.

2:14-17 2 Cor. 2:14-17 invites us to see the Lord Jesus after His victory- which can only refer to His

victorious death on the cross- leading a victory parade, in which we are the triumphant soldiers,

carrying with us burning incense. This represents our preaching of the Gospel, as part of our

participation in the joyful glory of the Lord‘s victory on the cross. And yet that incense is used as a

double symbol- both of us the preachers, who hold the aroma, and yet we are also the aroma itself.

We are the witness. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (Mt. 5:15) and the Gospel itself

(Mk. 4:21). But the motivation for it all is our part in the victory procession of the Lord, going on as

it does down through the ages, as He as it were comes home from the cross.

2:16- see on Mt. 3:11.

―And who is sufficient for these things?", Paul comments- as if to say, 'We simply don't appreciate

the power and the implications of the logic we are putting before men'.

2:17 When Paul speaks of how he is "like those sent from God and standing in His presence" (2

Cor. 2:17), he's using language which the Jews applied to the Angels. I take this to suggest that Paul

felt himself to be so at one with his guardian Angel that he can appropriate such Angelic language

to himself.

Paul twice assures his readers that he speaks the truth because he is speaking in the sight / presence

of God (2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19). The fact God is everywhere present through His Spirit, that He exists,

should lead us at the very least to be truthful. In the day of judgment, a condemned Israel will know

that God heard their every word; but if we accept that fact now then we will be influenced in our

words now. And by our words we will be justified (Ez. 35:12). Reflection upon the omniscience of

God leads us to marvel at His sensitivity to human behaviour. He noticed even the body language of

the women in Is. 3:16- and condemned them for the way they walked. Paul says that he does not

personally profit from his preaching, but in the sight of God does he preach (2 Cor. 2:17 RVmg.).

Our motivation in preaching, whether it be to demonstrate intellectual prowess, or to sincerely save

somebody, or merely to look good in the eyes of our brethren, is all weighed up; and so we must

preach in the sight of God, knowing He watches.

340

3:1 The subverters of Corinth ecclesia came with ―letters of commendation‖ (2 Cor. 3:1 cp. 4:2;

5:12; 6:4; 10:12,18; 12:11), and one wonders whether these letters were not from Jerusalem too; for

in the synagogue system upon which the early ecclesia was based, the Jerusalem rabbis issued such

letters. Recall how Saul had such letters to authorise him to persecute the Damascus Christians.

Their tactics were political and aggressive- they made Peter so scared that he forgot all the lessons

the Lord had taught him through the conversion of Cornelius, that from fear of them he refused to

break bread with Gentiles when their representatives were present.

3:2 Jesus ‗came down‘ to this world in the sense that He was the word of the Father made flesh, and

‗all men‘ saw the light of grace that was radiated from His very being. And that same word must be

flesh in us, as it was in the Lord. We are to be a living epistle, words of the Gospel made flesh,

―known and read of all men‖ (2 Cor. 3:2).

3:3 We read of the new covenant that was made with us by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Heb.

8 proves that we are under the new covenant by quoting from Jer. 31, which is a prophecy of how in

the future, Israel will repent, and will enter into the new covenant. Twice the Spirit uses Jer. 31:31

to prove to us that we are under the new covenant now (see Heb. 8:6-13 and 10:16-19); yet Jer. 31 is

a prophecy of how natural Israel in the future will enter into that covenant, after their humiliation at

the hands of their future invaders. So we are being taught that our entering of the covenant now is

similar to how natural Israel will enter that covenant in the future. The point is really clinched by the

way the Spirit cites Jer. 31 as relevant to us today. The reasoning goes that because Jer. 31:34

speaks of sin forgiven for those who accept the new covenant, therefore we don't need sacrifices or

human priesthood now, because Jer. 31:34 applies to us. So therefore God writing in our hearts is

going on now, too. This is confirmed by Paul's allusion to Jer. 31 in 2 Cor. 3:3. God wrote with His

Spirit on our hearts, He made a new covenant on the covenant-tables of our heart. Likewise 2 Cor.

1:22: "Who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the spirit in our hearts". There are

several prophecies which speak of Israel entering that new covenant, and what it will mean to them.

All of them, in some sense, apply to us who are now in the new covenant. All of us should be

earnestly seeking to appreciate the more finely exactly what our covenant with God means, exactly

what covenant relationship with God really entails. 2 Cor. 3:16 reasons that when Israel's heart shall

turn to the Lord Jesus, then the veil that is on their heart will be taken away. But now, through the

Spirit of the Lord Jesus, we each with unveiled face can behold the glory of the Lord Jesus (2 Cor.

3:18 RV). The clarity of vision concerning Christ which Israel will eventually come to should be

ours now; our hearts should turn to Christ now, as theirs will do. The Old Testament gives us much

information as to how Israel's heart will turn to Christ.

3:5- see on Mt. 3:11.

The wonderful word for ―impute‖ occurs again in a wonderful, truly wonderful passage of

assurance: ―Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ… not that we are sufficient of

ourselves to think [s.w. ―impute‖] any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency [s.w. ―worthiness‖]

is of God‖ because our face / image is being changed into His image, ―even as by the spirit of the

Lord‖ (2 Cor. 3:3,5,18). We look in the mirror, and see Christ in us. This looking in the mirror is

used by James as a figure for self-examination (James 1:18,22-25). By doing the word of truth, we

find we will live lives of looking in the mirror, of self-perception. This is the essence of self-

examination; to perceive the Christ-man within us, and that all other behaviour is our being

unfaithful to our true self, living out a persona. We are to see ourselves as being Christ; we are to

have a high view of ourselves in this sense, whilst despising and seeking to dismantle the personas

we so often act out which are unfaithful to Him. See on 2 Cor. 11:5.

2 Cor 3:5: ―Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think [s.w. impute] any thing as of ourselves;

but our sufficiency is of God‖. We are able to count / feel to ourselves as righteous; for God has

counted us righteous. See on Rom. 2:26.

341

3:6 The Law of Moses (and the whole Pentateuch? Consider Acts 7:38,53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) was

given by Angels. That the Angels ministered the Word in the past is picked up by Paul in 2 Cor. 3

when he says that because we have taken over the role of the Angels in this respect, we should teach

the word boldly: "Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter but of the

spirit; seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech"(v. 6,12). The context

refers to our preaching, that it should not be with the "enticing words of man's wisdom". See on

Rev. 22:9.

3:11 God Himself was very patient with the Jewish difficulty in accepting the Law had ended on the

cross. He inspired Paul to write that the law is being done away, even at the time he wrote to the

Corinthians, many years after Calvary (2 Cor. 3:11,13 RV). God and Paul could have taken a hard

line: the Law is finished. This is why Jesus bled and lived as He did. But they are so sensitive to the

difficulty of others in accepting what we know to be concrete truth. And we must take our lesson. In

our witness to the world, we mustn‘t give up at the first sign of wrong doctrine or inability to accept

our message. See what is positive and work on it.

3:12 Paul exhorts us to speak ‗freely‘ in our preaching (2 Cor. 3:12), just as he himself ―speak

freely‘ in his witness to Agrippa (Acts 26:26). Our salvation is through faith in God's absolute

grace; but if it is real faith, we will preach it on the housetops, we simply can't keep the knowledge

of such grace, such great salvation, to ourselves. "Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of

speech" in preaching (2 Cor. 3:12 YLT).

3:15-4:6 Throughout 2 Cor. 3:15-4:6, Paul comments on how Moses' face shone with God's glory,

and yet he spoke to Israel through a veil, with the result that Israel did not appreciate God's glory.

He speaks of him and all preachers of the true Christian Gospel as "able ministers of the new

testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor.

3:6)- clear allusion to Moses as the minister of the old, inferior covenant. Paul uses this to explain

why Israel did not respond to his preaching; "if our preaching be hid, it is hid to them that are lost"

(2 Cor. 4:3). Paul therefore saw himself and his fellow preachers as like Moses, radiating forth the

glory of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to an Israel which had the veil upon their heart. This

allusion must have so angered the Jews- to suggest that Christian preachers were like Moses!

3:15-18 In the same way as Moses spoke to the Angel without a veil on his face, and thereby came

to reflect the glory which shone from the Angel's face (Ex. 34:33-35), so we are bidden look at the

glory of God in the face of Jesus, to consider his character, and be changed into that same glory by

reflecting his character in our lives. By simply beholding the glory of Christ's righteousness, truly

appreciating it, we will be changed (2 Cor. 3:15-18 RV). Paul seems to be arguing that whenever a

Jew turns to the Lord Jesus and fellowships with Him, then he is living out the pattern of Moses.

And further, 2 Cor. 4:3 speaks of our Gospel being 'veiled' to those who are lost- as if we are as

Moses, the Gospel we preach being as the glory of God which shone from Moses' face. Let's keep

remembering how huge and radical was the challenge of this to a first century Jewish readership for

whom Moses was an almost untouchable hero.

3:16 When a [Jewish] man turns to the Lord Jesus, the veil of obedience to the Law is taken away (2

Cor. 3:16 RVmg.). Yet the Law also led men to Christ; and yet it also veils Him from them-

depending whether they read it as God intended.

3:17 The Jews believed that the shekinah, the physical light of glory associated with the tabernacle,

was somehow a personal being associated with a Messiah figure. Paul deconstructs this idea in 2

Cor. 3:17,18, where he says that the shekinah seen on the face of Moses was a fading glory of the

Old Covenant, having been made insignificant by the glory of Christ. Thus Paul is attacking the

common Jewish idea by saying that the Lord Jesus was not the shekinah but is superior to it.

Indeed, he so often makes the same point by stressing that the glorification of the Lord Jesus was at

His resurrection and ascension. He became "the Lord of glory" by what He suffered, and received

342

this glorification at the resurrection and ascension. If the Lord's glory was somehow pre-existent

before that, the wonder and personal significance of the resurrection for Jesus is somehow lost sight

of; the idea of suffering and then being glorified, as a pattern for us, is quite lost sight of. And yet

this was the repeated theme of Paul's inspired writings. Note in passing how when describing the

shekinah cloud in which the Angel dwelt, Paul comments that the cloud was mere water, for at the

Red Sea it played a part in symbolizing Israel's baptism "into Moses in the cloud [water above

them] and in the sea [water on both sides of them]" (1 Cor. 10:2). Moses and not the shekinah cloud

was the type of Christ. Yet Justin Martyr and many other careless Bible readers, coming to Scripture

in order to seek justification for their preconceived trinitarian ideas, have interpreted the cloud as

being the Angel which was supposedly Jesus. Hebrews 1 clarifies that God spoke in Old Testament

times through Angels and prophets- but not through His Son. This He began to do in the ministry of

the human Jesus. That path of thought alone should remove all possibility that any Old Testament

Angel was in fact the Lord Jesus.

3:18- see on Jn. 11:40; Ex. 33:11.

The Lord Jesus is "the Lord the spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18 RV); and "the Spirit" is one of Jesus' titles in

Revelation, so closely is He identified with the work of the Spirit. The Lord calls men and women

to Him, having first prepared their way to Him, guiding the preachers of His word. He brings people

to baptism, enters into a husband-wife relationship with them (Eph. 5:24), has children by them (i.e.

spirituality develops in our characters, Rom. 7:4), strengthens them afterwards, keeps them in Him,

"in everything... co-operates for good with those that love God" (Rom. 8:28 NEB), saves them in an

ongoing sense, develops them spiritually, and then finally presents them perfect at His return. He is

actively subduing "all things", even in the natural creation, unto Himself (1 Cor. 15:27,28 Gk.).

However, the NT focuses on His work amongst us, the ecclesia. Where two or three are gathered,

He manifests Himself in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20). He is like a priest constantly on duty,

bringing His people to the Father (Mt. 26:29 cp. Lev. 11:9).

2 Cor. 3 speaks of our beholding the glory of the Lord Jesus in a mirror; and this process slowly

transforms us into that same image of Him which we see. The ―glory‖ of God was revealed to

Moses at Sinai in Ex. 34 as the declaration of His character. In this sense, the Lord Jesus could

speak of having in His mortal life ―that glory which was with [the Father]‖ when the [Jewish] world

came into existence at Sinai (Jn. 17:5 Ethiopic and Western Text). It was that same glory which,

like Moses, He reflected to men. But according to 2 Cor. 3:18, the very experience of gazing upon

the glory of His character will change us into a reflection of it. There is something transforming

about the very personality of Jesus. And perhaps this is why we have such a psychological barrier to

thinking about Him deeply. We know that it has the power to transform and intrude into our

innermost darkness. I have given reason elsewhere for believing that the Gospel records are in fact

transcripts of the Gospel message preached by the four evangelists. The 'Gospel according to

Matthew' is therefore the Gospel message which he usually preached. And it's significant that at

least three of them start and end where many of us would- starting with the promises to the Jewish

fathers, and concluding with an appeal for baptism. Actually John's Gospel does this too, if you

decode the language he uses. This is surely the explanation of the Lord's otherwise strange remark

that wherever the Gospel is preached, the anointing of His feet by Mary would be part of that

message. And this is one of the few incidents that all four Gospel writers each mention. What this

shows is that the Gospel message is in its quintessence, the account of the man Christ Jesus- with all

that involves. It has truly been commented that "the central message of the gospels is not the

teaching of Jesus but Jesus himself". This is true insofar as Jesus is the word made flesh.

A mirror by its very nature, because of what it is, reflects the light which falls upon it to others. If

we have really seen the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will inevitably reflect it to others. Jesus

didn't say 'Do good works so that men may see the light'. He said ―let your light shine" - and then

men will see your good works and glorify the Father. Paul puts the same principle another way

343

when he says that we're all mirrors (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). A mirror by its very nature, because of what it

is, reflects the light which falls upon it to others. If we have really seen the light of the Lord Jesus

Christ, we will inevitably reflect it to others. Many of the Lord‘s parables portray the [preaching of]

the Gospel of the Kingdom of God as a kind of secret force: treasure hidden in a field, the tiniest

seed in the garden, wheat growing among weeds, a pinch of yeast worked into dough, salt on meat...

these are all images of something which works from within, changing other people in an ongoing,

regular manner.

Jesus Himself is described as ―the Lord the Spirit‖ (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). ―The Spirit‖ is a title of Jesus

(Rom. 8:16,26,27; Rev. 2:7,11 etc.). To walk each day in the Spirit is to live in Him, to act as He

would act. It is this ―Spirit‖ which will be the basis of our new life. Living life in that Spirit is living

the life we will eternally lead. If we don‘t like the righteous, clean life in Christ, if we find it

limiting and boring, then we are signing ourselves out of the eternal life. There will be no point in

our receiving it. The eternal life is there to be lived. It‘s there for the taking in the sense that it is

there to be lived. If we live it, we have it. And our bodies will be changed at the Lord‘s coming so

that we can eternally live it.

Paul explains his approach to Jewish conversion in 2 Cor. 3:15-18. Whenever they read Moses, they

have a veil over their minds, but when a Jew turns to the Lord, that veil is removed. He is perhaps

alluding to the Jewish practice of covering their head and even face with a prayer shawl or tallit

when reading or hearing God‘s word (Mk. 12:38). And this perhaps is behind his demand that

brethren should not cover their heads in ecclesial meetings in 1 Cor. 11:4. They are like Moses,

hiding his face behind a veil. But when the veil is removed by conversion, then the glory of Christ

will shine forth from them. The implication surely is that a true Jewish convert to Christ will in turn

radiate forth the Lord‘s glory to others. We each, with unveiled face, have like Moses seen the glory

of the Lord Jesus (2 Cor. 3:18). When Moses saw the glory, he was immediately given a ministry to

preach to Israel, to share that glory with them (Ex. 34:34). And Paul drives home the similarity; we

each have had the experience of Moses, and so ―therefore seeing we (too, like Moses) have this

ministry‖, ―we each‖ are to exercise it to Israel.

The new man / person created in us at baptism by the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) is essentially a

character; or at least, the potential for a character, after the pattern of the Lord Jesus. For Christ is

said to be ―formed in us‖. As we gaze into His glory, we are changed bit by bit into His image. His

glorious character is a mirror, Paul says; as we look into it, our image comes to reflect His glory (2

Cor. 3:18). He doesn‘t subsume us beneath Himself. Self-expression, or even self-manifestation, is

one of God‘s features, and so He intends it to be in us who are made after His image. God

manifestation doesn‘t in that sense mean the destruction or ignoring of the individual human person;

rather, the very opposite, in that the real character, the new life, will be eternally developed and

preserved. This is where Hinduism is so wrong, as wrong as any monolithic, apostate Papal or

Protestant Christianity- the person disappears into the great Whole. Joash understood where ‗God

manifestation‘ can be taken too far; he told the Baal worshippers to let Baal plead for himself, rather

than them pleading for him (Jud. 6:31). This needs thinking through. He was saying that they were

assuming that they had to ‗play God‘ for Baal; they had to mindlessly, unthinkingly manifest the

god they thought existed. Joash says that if Baal really exists, he himself will act for himself,

openly. And this of course is where the One True God excels; He does act for Himself, and doesn‘t

rely solely upon manifesting Himself through men in order to achieve anything.

3:18-21 The fact that God is a person means that who we are as persons, our being as persons, is of

the ultimate importance. It has been observed, in more sophisticated language: ―To predicate

personality to God is nothing else than to declare personality as the absolute essence‖. Thus who we

are as persons, who we develop to become, is indeed the ultimate issue. And further. Having a

personal relationship with a personal God means that we in that process develop as persons after His

image; for there is something magnetically changing about being in relationship with Him. We are

344

changed from glory to glory, by simply beholding His face and inevitably reflecting the glory there,

which glory abides upon us in the same way as it stuck to the face of Moses even after his

encounters with the Angel of Yahweh (2 Cor. 3:18-21 RV). And yet we live in a world which

increasingly denies us ultimate privacy or isolation; the loudness of the world is all permeating, all

intrusive, to the point that Paul Tillich claims: ―We cannot separate ourselves at any time from the

world to which we belong‖. And at times, we would all tend to agree with him. We just can‘t seem

to ‗get away from it all‘ and be with God, no matter where we go on holiday, with whom we go,

even if we slip off for an hour to be quite alone in the local park. But ultimately, I believe Tillich

was wrong. We can separate from the world‘s endless call and insistent pull, even if we‘re stuck

with an unbelieving or unhelpful partner, sniffly kids, long hours at work, the TV always on, the

phone always ringing. Because we as unique and individual persons can personally relate to the

personal God and His Son, thus finding the ultimate privacy and isolation which being human in

this world appears to preclude. But further, it‘s actually in the very razzamattaz of our mundane,

frustrated experience in this world that we can come to know God, and in which God reveals

Himself to us.

4:1 Paul seems to ascribe his own unflagging zeal for preaching to his experience of God's gracious

forgiveness of him. And further, he speaks in the third person, suggesting that his fellow preachers

had a like motivation: "Therefore, seeing we have this ministry (of preaching), as we have received

mercy, we faint not" (2 Cor. 4:1).

―This is the true grace of God. Stand ye fast in it" (1 Pet. 5:12 RV mg.). Appreciating that we

personally have experienced that grace, so great, so free, will of itself make us hold fast and not fall

from it. Because we have received grace, Paul reminisces, therefore we don't faint in our faith (2

Cor. 4:1 Gk.).

4:2 By showing that we are real men and women, who are desperate sinners thankful for the real

and true grace we have so wonderfully come across, we will persuade men. The more real, the more

credible. Paul described the genius of his preaching thus: ―By the manifestation of truth

commending ourselves to every man‘s conscience‖ (2 Cor. 4:2). It is our very transparency which

strikes a chord in the heart of those who hear us.

4:4

“The god of this world”

The Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: ―To those in this world whose minds have been blinded by God,

because they did not believe‖

Note in passing that it is darkness which blinds men‘s eyes (1 Jn. 2:11), i.e. not walking according

to the light of God‘s word. There is only one God – not two. And it‘s also noteworthy that Is. 6:10

speaks of God as having the power to blind Israel. The New Testament repeats this. Rom. 11:8 says

that God (and not Satan) blinded Israel to the Gospel; 2 Cor. 3:14 says that their minds were blinded

or ―hardened‖ (RV) as Pharaoh‘s was. Whoever ―the god of this world‖ is or was, God worked

through it and is therefore greater than it. Henry Kelly comments: ―Given this track record, can we

see the God of this Aeon as our God, as Yahweh? He is, after all, in charge of everything‖. It is God

and not any independent Satan figure who sends people an energeia of error to believe falsehood (2

Thess. 2:12) – the ultimate ‗energy‘ in the process is from God.

For something to be called ―the god of this world‖ does not necessarily mean that it is in reality ―the

god of this world‖; it could mean ‗the thing or power that this world counts to be God‘. Thus Acts

19:27 speaks of the goddess Diana, a lifeless idol, ―whom all the world worshippeth‖. This doesn‘t

mean that the piece of wood or stone called Diana was in reality the goddess of this world. I

mentioned in section 1-1-2 that Paul is quoting ―the god of this world‖ from contemporary Jewish

writings rather than actually believing such a ‗god‘ existed. It‘s also possible that ―the god of this

345

world‖ who blinds people is an allusion to material in the documents comprising what are now

known as the Gnostic Gospels. The Hypostasis of the Archons claims to record God‘s rebuke of

Satan: ――You are mistaken, Samael‖, which means, ―god of the blind‖―. Paul in this case would be

alluding to popular belief about Satan, and reapplying this language to the Jewish opposition to the

Gospel, and to the human ―blindness‖ which stops them accepting Christ. In Eph. 4:18 Paul

specifically defined what he meant by ―darkness‖: ―Having the understanding darkened... through

the ignorance that is within them... The blindness of their heart‖. That opposition, rather than any

mythical ‗Samael‘, was the real adversary / Satan.

Even if it is insisted that Satan exists as a personal being, the question has to be faced: Who created

Satan? Is his power under God‘s control, or not? Time and again the ‗Satan‘ and ‗demon‘ passages

of the Bible indicate that however we are to understand these terms, God is more powerful, God is

in control. The book of Job shows how the Satan there had all power given to him by God. The

power of the Lord Jesus over ‗demons‘ makes the same point. And in that context, note how Ex.

4:11 assures us that God is the one who makes people deaf, but Lk. 11:14 speaks of how such

muteness is apparently caused by demons. Clearly, God is in control. This world, with all the evil

and negative experience in it, has not been left under the control of some out–of–control evil being.

With this in mind, it should be apparent that the ‗god of this world‘ can‘t mean that the world is

under the ultimate control of Satan rather than God. Rather, ―the god of this world‖ [aion] ―can also

be read as merely a personification of all the forces of this aion that would thwart the success of the

Christian message‖.

The way that the idea of ‗Satan‘ is used to describe both individual sin and societies governed by

the principle of sin is very much in line with the way that first century society was very much a

communalistic rather than an individualistic society. The society was the person. Further, social

scientists and psychologists have time and again confirmed the Biblical teaching that the

fundamental motivation of human beings is the ego, self-interest – what the Bible calls ‗Satan‘. This

is what drives people at the individual level, and thus drives societies (4)

. It‘s appropriate, therefore,

for ‗Satan‘, the personification of human sin and self-interest, to also be a term applied to human

governments and societies as a whole. Truly in this sense (the Biblical) Satan could be understood

as ―the god of this world‖.

A Jewish Interpretation

If Scripture interprets Scripture, ―the god of this world (aion)‖ in 2 Corinthians 4:4 must be similar

to ―the prince of this world (kosmos)‖ (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Both the Jewish age [aion] and

kosmos ended in A.D. 70. In the context, Paul has been talking in 2 Cor. 3 about how the glory

shining from Moses‘ face blinded the Israelites so that they could not see the real spirit of the law

which pointed forward to Christ. Similarly, he argues in chapter 4, the Jews in the first century

could not see ―the light of the glorious (cp. The glory on Moses‘ face) gospel of Christ‖ because

they were still blinded by ―the god of this world‖ – the ruler of the Jewish age. The ―prince‖ or

―God‖ of the ―world‖ (age) was the Jewish system, manifested this time in Moses and his law.

Notice how the Jews are described as having made their boast of the law…made their boast of God

(Rom. 2:17,23). To them, the Law of Moses had become the god of their world. Although the link is

not made explicit, there seems no reason to doubt that ―the prince of this world‖ and ―Satan‖ are

connected. It is evident from Acts (9:23–25,29–30; 13:50,51; 14:5,19; 17:5,13; 18:12; 20:3) that the

Jews were the major ‗Satan‘ or adversary to the early Christians, especially to Paul. Of course it has

to be remembered that there is a difference between Moses‘ personal character and the Law he

administered; this contrast is constantly made in Hebrews. Similarly the Law was ―Holy, just and

good‖, but resulted in sin due to man‘s weakness – it was ―weak through the flesh‖, explaining why

the idea of Satan/sin is connected with the Law. Because of this it was in practice a ―ministry of

condemnation‖, and therefore a significant ‗adversary‘ (Satan) to man; for in reality, ―the motions

of sins...were by the Law‖ (Rom. 7:5).

346

4:4- see on Eph. 1:20.

The blessings now mediated by the exalted Lord mean that whatever the barriers, those who

appreciate those blessings and the height, the pure, wondrous height of His exaltation and what this

thereby enables for us, will naturally preach it. The Gospel is ―the gospel of the glory of Christ‖ (2

Cor. 4:4 RSV).

The glory of the ―similitude of the Lord‖ that Moses saw and reflected (Num. 12:4) is likened to

―the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God‖ (2 Cor. 4:4). Like Moses, Jewish people have that

glory, but they have it veiled; they potentially have it, but it is hidden, because their minds are

veiled. This could possibly suggest that Paul saw more potential in the Jewish mind for Christ than

other races; thus he speaks in Rom. 11 of how the natural branch which has been cut off [Israel] will

be more effectively grafted back into the olive tree than the wild Gentile branches. This of course

has similarities with the Lord‘s teaching about Himself as the vine, whose unfruitful branches had

been cut off (Jn. 15:2). Israel ―much more‖ than the Gentiles can be grafted back in, whereas

Gentile converts do this ―against nature‖ (Rom. 11:24). In the context of Israel‘s final repentance,

God speaks of how every one of the Jewish people has been potentially created for His glory,

because they carry His Name (Is. 43:7). Although Israel have been ―quenched as a wick‖ for their

sins (Is. 43:17 RVmg.), we are to realize that the wick is still smouldering, and are to follow the

Lord‘s example of never totally quenching it but instead seek to fan the wick of Israel back into life

(Is. 42:3).

4:6- see on Jn. 13:32.

Paul's description of how the light of the glory of God in Christ shines in the heart of the new

convert (2 Cor. 4:6) was not without reference back to his own Damascus road conversion (Acts

9:3; 22:6; 26;13). Because the light was shone to us, we reflect it to others.

―In the beginning", perhaps a huge period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the

present creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the previous creations. When

during the six days of creation He said "Let there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual

manufacture of the sun; this was presumably done "in the beginning". But the sun was commanded

to shine out of the darkness (2 Cor. 4:6), and therefore from the viewpoint of someone standing on

the earth, it was as if the sun had been created.

We read in Is. 52:14 that His face was more marred, more brutally transmogrified, than that of any

man. And yet reflecting upon 2 Cor. 4:4,6, we find that His face was the face of God; His glory was

and is the Father‘s glory: ―The glory of Christ, who is the image of God… the glory of God in the

face of Jesus Christ‖. Who is the one who redeems His people? Isaiah calls him ―the arm of the

Lord‖: ―to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?‖ (53:1; compare 52:10). Then he

continues: ―He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground‖ (v. 2). So,

the arm of the LORD is a person- a divine person! He is God‘s ―right arm,‖ His ―right-hand Man‖!

He is also human: He grows up out of the earth like a root out of dry ground.

It is emphasized that God created through His word of command; He said, and it was done (Ps.

33:6,9; 148:5; Is. 40:26; Jn. 1:3; Heb. 11:3; 2 Pet. 3:5). God is outside the constraints of time, and

outside the possibility of His word not being fulfilled. Therefore if He says something, it is as it is

done, even if in human time His command is not immediately fulfilled. Thus He calls things which

are not as though they are (Rom. 4:17). It is in this sense that the Lord Jesus and those in Him are

spoken of as if we existed at the beginning; although we didn't physically. And so God spoke the

words He did on six literal, consecutive days, and the orders ('fiats' is the word Alan Hayward used)

were therefore, in this sense as good as done. But the actual time taken to carry them out by the

Angels may have been very long. The Genesis record can then be understood as stating these

commands, and then recording their fulfilment- although the fulfilment wasn't necessarily on that

347

same day. It would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions outlined by God on the

six literal days are still being fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (Gen. 1:3.4). This is

interpreted in 2 Cor. 4:6 as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in order to give them the

knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the

sun to shine through the thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to shine

the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is still being fulfilled. Likewise the

resting of God on the seventh day was in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will

enter into the "rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord realized this when He said that even on Sabbath,

God was still working (Jn. 5:17). The creation work had not really been completed in practice,

although in prospect it had been. In this very context the apostle comments that although we must

still enter into that rest, "the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3). See

on Col. 1:15.

4:7 Paul and Timothy were vessels used by God (Acts 9:15; 2 Tim. 2:21); but so are we all (2 Cor.

4:7). This means that nobody can claim they have a right to certain types of work which others in

the congregation can‘t do. For they are only doing officially and publicly what in spirit we are all

seeking to do. We may respect them to the extent that we let them do the public work, but this

doesn‘t mean that we are freed of our own responsibilities, nor that they can lord it over us.

4:8 The blowing of trumpets by the 300 at Gideon‘s time (Jud. 7:19) points forward to the

resurrection, and the breaking of the clay to reveal the burning lamps within the pitchers, is clearly

at the root of 2 Cor. 4:6-8: "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness (cp. the sudden

appearance of those lights on that night)... we have this treasure in earthen vessels (cp. Jud. 7:19),

that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us (cp. Jud. 7:2). We are troubled on

every side" (cp. Jud. 6:2-6). All this would suggest that the 300 men are to be connected with the

resurrected of the new Israel, whose " earthen vessels" are broken (by means of resurrection and

judgment) at the end of Israel's Arab downtreading and immediately prior to the great destruction of

their enemies by them. However, it is also correct to suspect that the 300 also typify the righteous

remnant among Israel who will work with us to achieve this.

4:10 Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is manifest not only in us, but is

made available to others: ―Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the

life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto

death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then

death worketh in us, but life in you‖ (2 Cor 4:10-12). The life that is even now made manifest in us

is also made available to work in others because death to the flesh has worked in us personally.

Paul speaks of ―always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus" (2 Cor. 4:10), as if he

full well understood the ongoing nature of the Lord‘s crucifixion, and saw it as the pattern of his

daily living.

The almost terrifying thing is that we, for the sake of our identity with Christ, are also "delivered up

to death" (2 Cor. 4:11). We are asked to share, in principle, the height of devotion that He reached

in that moment. Analyzing 2 Cor. 4:10,11 in more detail, we find a number of parallels:

v. 10 v. 11

Always For we which live are alway

bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord

Jesus

delivered unto death for Jesus‘ sake

that the life also of Jesus that the life also of Jesus

348

might be manifest in our body might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

The second parallel is significant. To be delivered unto death for Jesus‘ sake is to bear about in an

ongoing sense His crucifixion. This means that His being ―delivered over" was seen by Paul as a

cameo of His whole sufferings on the cross. See on Mt. 27:26.

4:12 We can gain our brother for God's Kingdom (Mt. 18:15), as Noah saved his own house by his

faithful preparation (Heb. 11:7). Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is

manifest not only in us, but is made available to others: "Always bearing about in the body the

dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we

which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made

manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (2 Cor 4:10-12). The life

that is even now made manifest in us is also made available to work in others because death to the

flesh has worked in us personally.

4:13 "I believed, and therefore have I spoken" (Ps. 116:10) is quoted in 2 Cor. 4:13 concerning the

attitude of the preacher; because we have believed, therefore we preach, after Paul‘s pattern. We

carry in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus, and live His resurrection life even now in our mortal

flesh- and ―We having the same spirit of faith [as He had], according to that which is written, I

believed and therefore did I speak. We also believe , and therefore also we speak‖ (2 Cor. 4:11-13).

Here Paul quotes the Messianic Ps. 116:10 about our witness, which is a living out of the spirit

which Jesus had in His death and present life and being in Heaven. And we should adopt a similar

positive approach.

We are all terminally ill, if only we would know it. Paul quotes from the experience of Hezekiah at

this time and says that this should be the keynote of our witness (2 Cor. 4:13 cp. Ps. 116:10). He

was ―delivered from death‖ and therefore promised to walk before the Lord ―in the lands of the

living‖, believing in salvation and therefore speaking to those lands of it (RV). We all face the day

when we shall be as water spilt on the ground, that cannot be gathered up; when the delicate,

beautiful chandelier of human life will come crashing to the ground, when the rope holding the

bucket snaps, and it falls into the well. In all these Biblical images of death, we face the tragic

irreversibility of it all. Our bodies are already riddled with the cancer of inevitable decay. Today,

while it is still today, we must focus ourselves upon the vital and essential realities of our faith, and

away from all the peripheral issues upon which our flesh would far rather dwell.

4:17 Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works out an eternal weight of glory for us (2

Cor. 4:17). It follows from this that every moment of our lives is being intensely used by God to

prepare us for the eternity ahead. It is incredible that our probations here are so short- just forty

years or so after our baptisms. It would seem more appropriate if we suffered for say one million

years in order to prepare us for the infinite time we will one day enjoy, in which one million years

will be as a moment. The point is, a tremendous amount of spiritual development and preparation is

packed in to a very very small space of time. And from this a crucial conclusion follows: we must

allow God to use every moment of our present lives as intensively as possible, to the end we might

be prepared for His eternal Kingdom.

4:25 It has been truly commented: "He was raised again because of our acquittal" [Rom. 4:25] Paul

joyously proclaims. The verdict of the last day need no longer be awaited in awful suspense; it is

anticipated here and now. "Since we are justified by faith"- here and now in this present age- "we

have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" [Rom. 5:1]. United with Christ a man could

face the judgment unafraid, released from the paralyzing terror of wondering all through his life if

he would be accepted or rejected at the last". For us, judgment ought to be perceived as salvation.

Indeed, these two ideas are paralleled in Is. 59:16,17. Israel looked for judgment, but there was

none; for salvation, but it was far from them (Is. 59:11). In this sense judgment to come is a comfort

349

not a threat. Ps. 135:14 parallels the Lord judging His people with Him feeling sorry for them

(Heb.).

5:4 The struggle of prayer (see on Col. 2:1) is reflected in a word associated with it- ‗groaning‘. The

Lord Himself prayed with strong groanings and tears, and He even now makes intercession for our

prayers with groanings which are inexpressible within the limitations of descriptive words. 2 Cor.

5:4 says that we groan, being burdened (RVmg.), for the day when ―mortality might be swallowed

up of life‖. This is the language of a burdened Israel in Egypt, groaning for deliverance. Our

‗groaning‘ in this mortal flesh (2 Cor. 5:2) is therefore not to be read as a justification for groaning

and complaining about our humanity; but rather intense prayer for the second coming.

5:5 For us who understand not only Bible teaching about death, but also the insistent Biblical

emphasis upon it, we don‘t live life in an eternal now. We live now for tomorrow, joyful in our

awareness of the eternal consequence of our actions and personalities beyond the grave, knowing

that all our beliefs, actions, faith, character developments- all come to their ultimate term before the

judgment seat of Christ. In speaking of our mortality and our longing for immortality, Paul

comments that "He that has wrought us for the selfsame thing is God" (2 Cor. 5:5). The reference to

how God "wrought us" would appear to comment upon the mortality of our bodies; human mortality

[when correctly understood] makes us long for the coming of the Lord to clothe us with our new

nature which is to be brought to us from Heaven (2 Cor. 5:2). God "wrought us" as He did in order

to enable us to have this longing. According to the Bible, the spirit of man is God's. He gave us that

life force (Is. 42:5), and at death "the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Ecc. 12:7). If we seriously

believe this, then we will see death as an opportunity to give back to God what He gave us, namely

our very life force. If in our lives we followed this principle, realizing nothing we 'have' is really

ours but His, and therefore we were open handed with our posessions and knowledge of Him, freely

giving it out as it were to Him, then giving back our life force to Him will be but a natural

progression from this way of living. And thus we will see immortality not as something we

personally crave for our own benefit, but rather a further opportunity to reflect back to Him, to His

glory. Thus understanding Bible truth about death affects how we face death and eternity, and

therefore radically influences our lives now.

That God is working in our lives through His Spirit, and that He has granted us the gifts of

forgiveness and prospective salvation by its working, should not engender any spirit of relaxation. If

we truly believe this, it will motivate us to greater personal effort: "God... hath given unto us the

earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident... wherefore we labour that... we may be

accepted of Him. For we must all appear before the judgement seat... knowing the terror of the

Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5:5-11)- i.e. 'Despite having had God's gift of salvation in prospect,

the utmost personal effort is still required in responding to it. Think of the day of judgement, the

fear that you will have then because of God's holiness and your sinfulness. Although this is not our

only motivation, indeed it is somewhat human ("we persuade men"), it is still powerfully true'.

5:8- see on Lk. 12:37.

5:9 ―In this (body) we groan... we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened... we are

always confident... we are confident, I say... Wherefore we labour (are ambitious), that... we may be

accepted of Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:1-10).

Notice the designed repetition of the words "groan" and "confident". The humdrum groaning of

this life is related to our ambitious confidence that we really will be accepted at the day of

judgment. The very thought of acceptance on that day requires real ambition, an ambition that will

lift us right up out of the 'groaning' of this life.

5:10- see on Jn. 3:21.

The RSV renders 2 Cor. 5:10 as teaching that we will be judged according to the deeds we have

done in ―the body‖, and it may just be that Paul had in mind ‗the body of Christ‘. Our actions there,

350

to our brethren, will be the basis of our judgment. To keep the faith to ourselves without reaching

out into the world of others was foreseen by the Lord as a very major problem for us.

God reconciled the world; but the word of reconciliation is committed unto us (2 Cor. 5:19). All

men were reconciled to God on the cross, even while they were sinners (Rom. 5:10); but it depends

upon us to take that Gospel of reconciliation to them. So far as we fail in this, so far we leave His

death for them in vain, only a potential achievment. We were given reconcilliation personally (Rom.

5:11 RV); and we are also given ―the ministry of reconcilliation‖, the command to preach that

reconcilliation and share it with others (2 Cor. 5:10). To be reconciled to God is to be given a charge

to reconcile others.

"We must all appear before the judgment seat" (2 Cor. 5:10) doesn't just mean we'll put in an

appearance. The Greek means to be exposed utterly. We shall have "our lives laid open" (NEB).

Then, the unshareable self will be revealed; that essence of personality which is unknown even to

us.

5:11- see on 1 Jn. 3:19.

Fearing God's judgment and righteousness is not in itself a bad motivation. It may not be the highest

motivation, but in practice, because we so often understand no other language, the real fear of God

is a necessary motivation. Knowing the ―terror of the Lord" (a phrase used in the OT with reference

to coming judgment), Paul persuaded men to accept His grace (2 Cor. 5:11). Noah went into the ark

(cp. baptism) from fear of the coming flood (Gen. 7:7), as Israel crossed the Red Sea (again,

baptism) from fear of the approaching Egyptians, as men fled to the city of refuge (again, Christ,

Heb. 6:18) from fear of the avenger of blood, and as circumcision (cp. baptism) was performed with

the threat of exclusion from the community (possibly by death) hanging over the child. Biblically,

phobos is the motivation for a pure life (1 Pet. 3:2; 2 Cor. 7:11), for humility in our dealings with

each other (Eph. 5:21), for accepting the Gospel in the first place (2 Cor. 5:11). It must be

remembered that the Gospel is not only good news, but also the warning of judgment to come on

those who reject it (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38-40). The good news is so good that a man can't hear it

and decide not to respond- without facing judgment for his rejection of God's love and Christ's

death. There are many who know the Gospel (e.g. by being 'brought up in the Faith') but who

calmly walk away from the call of the cross. I would suggest that they need more reminding than it

seems they are given of the fear of God, the tragic inevitability of judgment to come, the sense of

desperate self-hate and bitter regret that will engulf men then, the sense of no place to run... . Paul

used "the terror of the Lord" , the concept of fearing God, to persuade men who had rejected his

beseeching (2 Cor. 5:11).

The idea of conditional salvation, and that not for everybody but a tiny minority, I find both hard to

accept and yet the very thing that clinches the actual reality of 'the truth' we hold. Josiah's zealous

reforms started with reading "the book of the covenant" (2 Kings 23:2), probably the list of curses

which were to come for disobedience (2 Kings 22:19 = Lev. 26:31,32). And this book was in some

way a joy and rejoicing to Jeremiah (Jer. 15:16). In this sense Paul used the terror of possible

condemnation to persuade men (2 Cor. 5:11). And when those that had already believed (Acts 19:18

Gk.) saw how the condemned sons of Sceva fled away from the spirit of Jesus naked and wounded,

in anticipation of the final judgment, they ceased being secret believers and came out openly with

their confessions of unworthiness and need for salvation. In the light of that foretaste of judgment to

come, they realized that nothing else mattered. The image of them fleeing naked definitely alludes

to Am. 2:16: "The most courageous men of might shall flee naked in that day, Says the Lord"

(NKJV).

5:12 Like the Lord, Paul‘s transparency was what connected him with people. He says that he needs

no letter of recommendation to them, because he is written on their hearts; ―by manifestation of the

truth commending ourselves to every man‘s conscience in the sight of God…we are made manifest

351

unto God, and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences‖ (2 Cor. 3:3; 4:2; 5:11). There

were those in Corinth who thought in terms of appearances rather than the heart; those who

demanded letters of recommendation before accepting Paul (2 Cor. 5:12); but Paul‘s response is that

because he is transparent to God, it is inevitable that he is transparent before them his brethren.

They knew in their hearts / consciences, no matter how they sought to deny it, that he was sincere.

And this was why Paul could be so open with the critical Corinthians about his personal life. ―Be ye

also enlarged‖ invites us to be like him in this. To be asked to have the openness of Paul is a

challenge indeed. Even in our Christian experience, those brethren and sisters who have the most

influence on others are those who artlessly radiate their own spirit, whose struggle with sin,

devotion and example is unconcealable and uncontrived.

5:13 As Paul wrote to his unspiritual Corinthian brethren, he was doubtless hurt at the thought of

their opposition to him; yet his mind flew to the similarities between himself and his Lord being

rejected by his brethren (Mk. 3:21 = 2 Cor. 5:13).

5:14- see on 2 Cor. 8:9.

The love of Christ (and this phrase is almost always used in the NT of the cross) must constrain us

(2 Cor. 5:14); we must reflect upon it until with Paul we pray with bowed knees to know the length,

and the breadth and the height, of that love of Christ (on Calvary) that passes our unaided human

knowledge (Eph. 3:19). For this alone is what will drive our passivity from us; here at last is

something to respond to with all our heart and soul.

If we really think of the Lord's passion seriously, our thoughts will be punctuated with the

realization: "I would not have done that. I would simply not have held on". But in that He died for

us all in Him, it is reckoned that we all died with Him the death of the cross (2 Cor. 5:14). We are

graciously counted as having died with Him in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5), and now we try to live this

out in practice. And in appreciating this, inevitably our patience with our brethren will be the more

thorough-going.

The image of soldiers in their time of dying has often been used afterwards as a motivation for a

nation: ―Earn this" is the message their faces give. And it is no more true than in the death of the

Lord. ―The love of Christ", an idea elsewhere used of His death (Jn. 13:1; 2 Cor. 5:14,15; Rom.

8:32,34,35; Eph. 5:2,25; Gal. 2:20; Rev. 1:5 cp. 1 Jn. 4:10), constrains us; it doesn‘t force us, but

rather shuts us up unto one way, as in a narrow, walled path. We cannot sit passively before the

cross of the Lord. That ―love of Christ" there passes our human knowledge, and yet our hearts can

be opened, as Paul prayed, that we might know the length, breadth and height of it. The crucified

Son of God was the full representation of God.

He died as He did so that the love of God, the real meaning of love, might be displayed in a cameo,

in an intense, visual, physical form which could be remembered and meditated upon. Observing the

memorial meeting is the very least we can do to this end; and this itself is only a beginning. ―The

love of Christ constraineth us" not to live for ourselves, but unto him that died for us, and to show

this by our concern for our brethren (2 Cor. 5:14 and context). Marvin Vincent has a telling

comment on the Greek word translated "constraineth‖: "The idea is not urging or driving, but

shutting up to one line or purpose, as in a narrow, walled road" (Word Studies Of The N.T.). We

shouldn't be driven men and women; we are not urged or driven by the cross, but shut up by it to

one purpose. There are only two ways before us, to death or life; and we are shut up by the cross in

that road to life. In this lies the sustaining and transforming power of the cross, if only we would

meditate upon it. It is an epitome of every facet of the love of God and of Christ. There the Name of

God was declared, that the love that was in the Father and Son may be in us (Jn. 17:26).

5:14,15 The representative nature of the Lord's death means that we are pledged to live out His self-

crucifixion as far as we can; to re-live the crucifixion process in our imagination, to come to that

point where we know we wouldn't have gone through with it, and to grasp with real wonder and

352

gratitude the salvation of the cross. " As one has died for all, then all have died, and that He died for

all in order to have the living live no longer for themselves but for Him who died and rose for them"

(2 Cor. 5:14,15 Moffatt). It has been powerfully commented: "To know oneself to have been

involved in the sacrificial death of Christ, on account of its representational character, is to see

oneself committed to a sacrificial life, to a re-enactment in oneself of the cross" (W.F. Barling, The

Letters To Corinth).

5:15 All that is true of the Lord Jesus becomes in some sense, at some time, true of each of us who

are in Him. It‘s true that nowhere in the Bible is the Lord Jesus actually called our ―representative‖,

but the idea is clearly there. I suggest it‘s especially clear in all the Bible passages which speak of

Him acting huper us- what Dorothee Sölle called ―the preposition of representation‖. Arndt and

Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon define huper in the genitive as meaning ―‘for‘, ‗in behalf

of‘, ‗for the sake of‘ someone. When used in the sense of representation, huper is associated with

verbs like ‗request, pray, care, work, feel, suffer, die, support‘‖. So in the same way as the Lord

representatively prays, died, cares, suffers, works ―for‖ us, we are to do likewise, if He indeed is our

representative and we His. Our prayers for another, our caring for them, is no longer a rushed

salving of our conscience through some good deed. Instead 2 Cor. 5:15 becomes our motivation:

―He died for (huper) all [of us], that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but

unto him which died for (huper) them‖. We are, in our turn, to go forth and be ―ambassadors for

(huper) Christ... we pray you in Christ‘s stead (huper Christ), be reconciled to God‖ (2 Cor. 5:20).

Grasping Him as our representative means that we will be His representatives in this world, and not

leave that to others or think that our relationship in Him is so internal we needn‘t breathe nor show a

word of it to others. As He suffered ―the just for (huper) the unjust‖ (1 Pet. 3:18), our living, caring,

praying for others is no longer done ―for‖ those whom we consider good enough, worthy enough,

sharing our religious convictions and theology. For whilst we were yet sinners, Christ died huper us

(Rom. 5:6). And this representative death is to find an issue in our praying huper others (Acts 12:5;

Rom. 10:1; 15:30; 2 Cor. 1:11), just as He makes intercession huper us (Rom. 8:26,34). We are to

spend and be spent huper others, after the pattern of the Lord in His final nakedness of death on the

cross (2 Cor. 12:15). These must all be far more than fine ideas for us. These are the principles

which we are to live by in hour by hour life. And they demand a huge amount, even the cross itself.

For unto us is given ―in the behalf of Christ [huper Christ], not only to [quietly, painlessly,

theoretically] believe on Him, but also to suffer for (huper) his sake‖ (Phil. 1:29). In all this, then,

we see that the Lord‘s being our representative was not only at the time of His death; the fact He

continues to be our representative makes Him our ongoing challenge.

5:17 F.F. Bruce has observed: "Something of Paul's native impetuousness is apparent in his

epistolary style... time and again Paul starts a sentence that never reaches a grammatical end, for

before he is well launched on it a new thought strikes him and he turns aside to deal with that"

(Paul: Apostle Of The Free Spirit, Exeter: 1980, p. 456). His style is exemplified in 2 Cor. 5:17. The

Greek text here is a sentence in which there are no verbs: ―If anyone in Christ- new creation‖. It is

as if the thrill of it leads him to just blurt it out. And observe that this was to be found in a man of

extraordinary culture and intellectual ability. By perceiving this tension, the passion behind his style

is thereby accentuated the more. Likewise consider how in Galatians Paul uses so many negatives,

as if his passion and almost rage at the false teachers is coming out. See on Gal. 1:1.

God is seeking to work a new creation in the experience of men and women. He has done this for us

in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), and yet the reality of it is still dependent upon whether we will allow

ourselves to put on the new man after the image of God, whether we will become born again after

His image and likeness (Eph. 4:23,24).

The Greek of 2 Cor. 5:17 is tellingly ambiguous; the sense can be: "If any man be in Christ, he is a

new creature", or, "If any man be in Christ, let him be a new creature". The fact of becoming in

353

Christ through baptism means that we are new creations potentially, and therefore must work

towards being new creations. We must go on further than just being baptized into Christ.

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are

become new" (2 Cor.5:17) is very much the language of Rev.21:5 concerning the creation of new

things on the ruins of the old, at Christ's return. Yet this dramatic change must occur within the

believer as a result of being in Christ in this life, before he can share in the wonders of that future

age.

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation... all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). As a new

born baby sees a chair, a table, a brother or sister, for the very first time, so do we after baptism. It is

so hard for us to appreciate the newness of everything to a baby or small child. "All things are

become new" in our attitude of mind after baptism. Yet we live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4), as if

this process of birth is ongoing throughout our spiritual lives. After baptism, therefore, we set out on

a life in which we should be gazing, in wide eyed wonder, at new spiritual concepts and realities.

How patient we should be with others who are in this position. "Old things are passed away" at

baptism, just as the old world order will "pass away" at the Lord's return (Rev. 21:5). The dramatic

change that will come upon this planet in the Kingdom should therefore be paralleled in our new

spiritual vistas after baptism, and throughout the process of being re-born and becoming a new

creation.

5:18 God reconciled us by the cross, and therefore to us was given the work of preaching the Gospel

of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18,20)- a sharing with others of our own experience. This was clearly

what fired the first century ecclesia. On the basis of our experience of reconciliation with God, we

have been given ―the ministry of reconciliation‖, in that God ―hath put in us [Gk. settled deep within

us] the word of reconciliation‖ (2 Cor. 5:18,19) . That which is deeply internal issues in an outward

witness. For this reason all discussion of how that outward witness should be made is somewhat

irrelevant- the witness naturally springs from deep within. If it doesn‘t, we have to ask whether we

have anything much deep within.

5:18-20 Our preaching should flow naturally out of our own personal experience of God's grace.

The fact that we were reconciled is tied up with the fact that we have been given, as part of this

―being reconciled‖, the ministry of preaching reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 18-20). It is the greatness of

God's grace which will form the content of our preaching, not our own practical experience of it.

Our experience will only motivate us personally, not anyone else. We preach not ourselves, but

Christ as Lord and Saviour. Let's really get down to serious self examination, to more finely

appreciating the holiness of God and the horror of sin. If we can do this- and only if- our preaching,

our speaking, our reasoning, even our very body language, will be stamped with the vital hallmark:

humility.

5:19- see on Ps. 32:2.

Christ "reconciled the world" in that He obtained forgiveness for us (2 Cor. 5:19)- we are "the

world" which was reconciled, we are the "all things" purged by His blood (Heb. 9:22).

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself... and hath committed unto us the word

(Gospel) of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech

(men) by us... we then, as workers together with Him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace

of God in vain. For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted... behold, now is the accepted time,

now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 5:19-6:2). We are the means by which God is appealing to

mankind; and we must do this while there is the opportunity for salvation. As Moses delivered

God‘s people ―with the hand of the angel‖, we likewise are working in co-operation with huge

Angelic forces (Acts 7:35 RV). According to 2 Cor.5, in prospect, God reconciled the whole world

to Himself on the cross, the devil was destroyed, all sin was overcome then, in prospect. In this

sense Christ is the propitiation for our sins as much as He is for those of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2).

354

On the cross, He bore away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). So now we must spread this good news

to the whole world, for all mens' sins were conquered on the cross.

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor. 5:19) seems to be a comment on the

death, rather than the nature, of the Lord Jesus. It is in the context of the statement that Christ died

for all men (2 Cor. 5:14). In that death, God was especially in Christ. Perhaps it was partly with

reference to the cross that the Lord said: ―I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (Jn. 16:25). See on

Jn. 19:19.

5:20 We are the face of Christ to this world, and to our brethren; He has no arms or legs or face on

this earth apart from us, His body. God ―makes His appeal by us‖ (2 Cor. 5:20 RSV).

―Come now, and let us reason together, saith Yahweh. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be

as snow" (Is. 1:18). This is extraordinary indeed. God is seeking to persuade men to accept the

forgiveness available in the blood of His Son. And He asks us to do this work for Him, to reflect

this aspect of His character to the world, with that same spirit of earnest humility: "As though God

did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). No

wonder in the context Paul says that we should therefore watch our behaviour and attitudes. The

fact men turn away from God's beseeching, His praying that they will accept His grace, is surely the

greatest tragedy in the whole cosmos, in the whole of existence. Little wonder we should look

diligently lest any man fail, or (Gk.) fall away from God's grace (Heb. 12:15) on account of

bitterness in the ecclesia.

Consider the implications of 2 Cor. 5:20: ―On behalf of Christ, as though God were intreating by us:

we beseech you on behalf of Christ: be ye reconciled to God [because] him who knew no sin he

made to be a sin [a sin offering?] on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in

him". Because of the cross, the atonement which God wrought in Christ‘s offering, we beseech men

to be reconciled to God. Appreciating the cross and the nature of the atonement should be the basis

of our appeal to men. And indeed, such an appeal is God appealing to men and women, in that there

on the cross ―God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself". The blood and spittle covered

body of the Lord lifted up was and is the appeal, the beseeching of God Himself to men. And this is

the message that we are honoured to preach on His behalf; we preach the appeal of God through the

cross. See on Jn. 19:19.

2 Cor. 5:14-21 urges us to preach the salvation in Christ to all men, because He died for us, as our

representative. He died for [the sake of] all (5:14,15), He was made sin for our sake (5:21); and

therefore we are ambassadors for [s.w.] His sake (5:20). Because He was our representative, so we

must be His representatives in witnessing Him to the world. This is why the preaching of Acts was

consistently motivated by the Lord's death and resurrection for the preachers. Phil. 2 draws out the

parallel between the Name of Jesus, in which all the names of those in Him find a part, and the need

to confess this in preaching. By baptism into the name of Jesus, men confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord, to the glory of God the Father. There was and is no other name given under Heaven by which

men can be saved; "every name" under the whole Heaven must take on the name of Jesus in

baptism. This is why Acts associates His exaltation (Acts 2:33; 5:31) and His new name (Acts

2:21,38; 3:6,16; 4:10,12,18,30; 5:40) with an appeal for men and women to be baptized into that

Name. Realizing the meaning of the Name of Jesus and the height of His exaltation meant that they

realized how "all men" could have their part in a sacrifice which represented "all men". And thus

they were motivated to preach to "all men". And thus Paul's whole preaching ministry was a bearing

of the Name of Jesus before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

5:21 2 Cor. 5:14-21 urges us to preach the salvation in Christ to all men, because He died for us, as

our representative. He died for [the sake of] all (5:14,15), He was made sin for our sake (5:21); and

therefore we are ambassadors for [s.w.] His sake (5:20). Because He was our representative, so we

355

must be His representatives in witnessing Him to the world. This is why the preaching of Acts was

consistently motivated by the Lord‘s death and resurrection for the preachers. See on Heb. 2:9.

There was a child-likeness about the Lord. Not in that He was naieve- He was the least naieve of all

men. But rather did He have an innocence about sin, as if He were a sweet child caught up within

the web of sinful men around Him. Indeed the point has been made that when Paul spoke of the

Lord as being one ―who knew no sin‖ (2 Cor. 5:21), he was using the very phrase used in rabbinic

and other contemporary writings to describe children, who were too young to ‗know sin‘. This

child-likeness was beautifully related to His utter naturalness

6:1 Workers together- see on 1 Sam. 14:45.

Paul seems to have the great commission in mind, when he wrote to the Corinthians that to all of us

has been committed the ministry of reconciliation [a reference to the great commission?], and in

discharging it we are ‗workers together‘ with God (2 Cor. 6:1)- the very same word used in Mk.

16:20 concerning how the Lord Jesus ‗worked with‘ His men as they fulfilled the commission.

6:2- see on Ps. 69:13

There's an allusion here to Ps. 32:6. For every sinner, for whom David is our example, now is the

time when God may be "found" in the sense of experiencing His forgiveness. God is love towards

men, He is forgiveness. To experience this and respond back to it is therefore to find the knowledge

of God. This " time when thou (i.e. God's forgiveness, which is God) mayest be found" which David

speaks of is that of 2 Cor.6:2: "Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" . Paul

was speaking of how all sinners, baptized or not, need to realize this; we are all in David's position.

Some complain that they did not experience a very great upsurge in finding and knowing God at the

point of baptism. This may be due to an insufficient emphasis on the need for repentance and

appreciating the seriousness of sin before baptism. We must not think that we know God because

we believe a Statement of Faith and have been baptized. "Now is the accepted time", Paul wrote to

the baptized Corinthians, to truly take on board the marvel of God's forgiveness, to know it and

respond to it for ourselves, and thereby to come to a dynamic, two-way relationship with God.

6:2 = Is. 49:8 ―In an acceptable time have I heard thee‖. This is one of a number of instances of

where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures [here Is. 53:1] are applied to Paul in the context of his

preaching Christ. Is. 49:8,9: ―In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have

I helped thee‖ is quoted about us in 2 Cor. 6:2 in the context of us being preachers, labouring with

God]. Isaiah continues: ―And I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to

raise up the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages; saying to them that are bound, Go

forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves‖ (RV). This is the language of the Lord‘s

preaching, which freed men from the prison house (Is. 61:1,2). Yet because we are in Him, we too

have His ministry; our words too can make men inherit the Kingdom, and free men from their

bondage. ―We are witnesses [through being] in him‖ (Acts 5:32 RVmg.). As the Lord in Isaiah‘s

servant songs was the suffering, saving, atoning servant, lifted up to give salvation world-wide- so

are we. ―Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee" (Is.49:8) is quoted by Paul in

2 Cor.6 about us. The next verse, Is.49:9, must therefore also be about us: "That thou mayest say to

the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves...they shall not hunger nor

thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them,

even by the springs of water‖. In the same way as we have experienced the "acceptable time" in this

life, so we will be able to encourage the mortals to make use of the "accepted time" of the

Millennium. It is when they do this that "they shall not hunger nor thirst".

6:4 We are not only Jesus to this world but also effectively we are the witness to God Himself. We

minister His care to others; to the extent that Paul could write both that he was a minister of God,

and also a minister of the church (2 Cor. 6:4; Col. 1:24,25).

356

6:4,5 It is primarily people who communicate, not words or ideas. Personal authenticity is

undoubtedly the strongest credential in our work of communicating the message. Thus Paul could

speak of his afflictions as being his credentials (2 Cor. 11:21-33; 1 Thess. 2:1-4; 2 Tim. 3:10-12).

And God‘s true servant commends himself by the endurance of opposition (2 Cor. 6:4,5).

6:6 There is repeated N.T. warning against the ease of slipping into a mindset which thinks itself to

be 'loving' when actually it isn't. "Let love be without dissimulation" (s.w. "unfeigned"; Rom. 12:9).

The fact he knew himself to have "love unfeigned" (2 Cor. 6:6) was one of Paul's credentials as a

genuine apostle. James 3:17 speaks of the true spirituality, including gentleness, patience, kindness

etc., as being "without hypocrisy" (s.w. "unfeigned"). A true response to the doctrines of the basic

Gospel will result in "love unfeigned" (1 Pet. 1:22). Israel of old failed in this: "With their mouth

they shew much love; but their heart goeth after their covetousness" (Ez. 33:31). This is all some

emphasis. It helps explain why both in ourselves and in others it is possible to behold a great

emphasis on love whilst at the same time harbouring a very unloving attitude. I think all of us with

any ecclesial experience will be able to recall conversations where 'love' has been advocated, or

'unloving behaviour' criticized, in language which simply breathes bitterness and contempt!

6:8 We could almost conclude that being unfairly gossiped about is a characteristic of the true

servant of God. Indeed, when Paul lists the things which confirm his apostleship, he not only lists

his imprisonments and shipwrecks; he says that the fact he has been slandered is another proof that

he is a servant of Christ (2 Cor. 6:8). See on 1 Tim. 5:19.

6:10- see on Mt. 26:39.

In our attitudes we must be as if we possessed nothing, as if we have in our heart of hearts resigned

everything, even the very concept of personal 'possession'. Paul could say that he was as if he

possessed nothing (2 Cor. 6:10), although he evidently had at least some money to his name (Acts

24:26), and could offer to re-imburse Philemon for any damages. There is a great freedom in this, if

only we would know it.

He speaks of how we received the riches of God‘s grace (Eph. 1:18; 2:7; 3:8,16); and yet in writing

to the Corinthians he uses only to them a specific Greek word meaning ‗to enrich‘. He reminds them

of how we are enriched by Him in the knowledge of forgiveness which we have (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor.

9:11), and therefore we are to ‗enrich‘ others in our preaching to them of the same grace (2 Cor.

6:10).

6:11- see on 2 Cor. 8:24.

The openness of Paul, his self-revelation of his innermost spirit, especially to his detractors at

Corinth, is incredible. In such situations one tends to be cagey and reserved rather than open-

hearted. But much of what we learn about Paul's innermost struggles comes from his letters to the

Corinthians, who seemed ready to abuse his every word. He bluntly reminded them of his openness:

"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is opened unto you, our heart is enlarged" (2 Cor. 6:11). And he asks

them, as his very own children, to be that open with him: "Now for a recompense in the same (I

speak as unto my children), be ye also enlarged" (2 Cor. 6:13).

6:11-13 Many find that human leaders or elders come between them and a personal following of

Jesus. Yet we need to remember that Jesus never delegated his personal authority over His people to

anyone. This is where the Catholic idea of the Pope as the personal representative of Jesus is so

wrong. Much as we should respect our elders, this respect shouldn‘t come between us and the Lord

Jesus. Note how Paul never demanded power over his converts. He made himself vulnerable to

them, in the hope that they would respond to him in an open relationship: ―We have spoken freely to

you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from

you… As a fair exchange- I speak as to my children- open wide your hearts also‖ (2 Cor. 6:11-13).

357

6:14 Paul's selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. Thus Paul

warns Corinth not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14), or else he would come to

them and not spare. He is quoting the LXX of Num. 25:3 concerning how Israel joined themselves

to Baal-peor, resulting in Moses commanding the murder of all those guilty- just as Paul later did to

Corinth.

Paul appeared to lay the law down to the Corinthians about separation from the world- and they

complained. His comment is that their sense of 'limitation' or being 'cramped' [Gk.] was not due to

what he'd said, but more because of their own consciences as believers: "You are not cramped in us,

but you are cramped by your own hearts... be you also enlarged! Be not unequally yoked together

with unbelievers; for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?" (2 Cor. 6:12-14).

He's saying that the apparent 'cramping' or 'limitation' of being separate from the ways of the world

is actually not a cramping at all- it's an enlargement of the heart's horizons. And this fits in

admirably with the above examples of 'holiness'. Separation from sin is actually a separation unto so

much more.

Israel were not to sow "mingled seed" in their fields, or make clothes of "mingled" materials (Lev.

19:19). The materials would, as the Lord Himself mentioned, tear apart. The garment wouldn't last.

And sowing different seeds together likewise would bring no fruit to perfection. But the LXX in

these passages is quoted in one place only in the NT: "Be not unequally yoked together with

unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14). If we are, the relationship can't work. So don't think that if we marry out

of the Faith, it will all work out OK. Unless there is serious repentance (and even then, not always),

it won't work. It will be a garment patched up with two different materials.

6:17 We are to "be separate" in this life, as an act of choice in the myriad of daily decisions we face

(2 Cor. 6:17)- and yet at the judgment, the Lord will "sever" (s.w.) the wicked from the just (Mt.

13:49), or "separate" the sheep from the goats (Mt. 25:32). But we are to live out the judgment now

in our separation from wickedness. And if we do this, wicked men shall "separate" from us- the

judgment is worked out ahead of time (Lk. 6:22).

God will confirm us in coming out from the world. He told His people to flee from Babylon, to

come out of her and return to His land and Kingdom (Is. 48:20; 52:7; Jer. 50:8; Zech. 2:7). Babylon

offered them a secure life, wealth, a society which accepted them (Esther 8:17; 10:3), houses which

they had built for themselves (Jer. 29:5). And they were asked to leave all this, and travel the

uncertain wilderness road to the ruins of Israel. They are cited in the NT as types of us in our exit

from this world (2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4). Those who decided to obey God‘s command and leave

Babylon were confirmed in this by God: He raised up their spirit to want to return and re-build

Jerusalem, and He touched the heart of Cyrus to make decrees which greatly helped them to do this

(Ezra 1:2-5). And so the same Lord God of Israel is waiting to confirm us in our every act of

separation from the kingdoms of this world, great or small; and He waits not only to receive us, but

to be a Father unto us, and to make us His sons and daughters (2 Cor. 6:18).

Paul spoke of how those who join themselves with unbelievers (and marriage must surely have been

in his mind) had to retract or repent of that relationship, and then God would receive them and be

their God (2 Cor. 6:14-17). He was referring back to the Abrahamic promise of Gen. 17:7, that God

would be the God of Abraham's seed. Is not the suggestion that those who unrepentantly marry

unbelievers have broken the covenant?

7:1 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers... what part hath he that

believeth with an infidel?... wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the

Lord, and touch not the unclean thing... having therefore these promises... let us cleanse ourselves".

The links with Is. 52:11 and Rev. 18:4 suggest that the people referred to were actually in spiritual

Babylon; they had unequally yoked themselves together with unbelievers; they needed to separate

(s.w. to divide, sever) themselves, and come out from among them. The idea of unequal yoking

358

could be a marriage allusion. Could it be that Paul is suggesting that they sever themselves from the

unbelievers they had wrongly married? In Neh. 13 we have those who had married out being

"cleansed" from their relationships, even though they didn't actually end them.

We must wash ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit even after baptism (2 Cor. 7:1); by

doing so, we as it were go through the death-and-resurrection process of baptism again; we live it all

once again. See on Gal. 3:27.

2 Cor. 7:1 exhorts us to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh (RV), not being like those

sinners who ―defile the flesh‖ (Jude 8). These passages would imply that the flesh is defiled not by

who we are naturally, but by human behaviour and mindsets from which we can separate ourselves.

Whilst we consider ourselves so awful that we consider our flesh to be defiled naturally, we will

never value the human person, and will give way too easily to sin as if it‘s just our natural fate. See

on Rom. 8:3.

7:4 When Corinth reviled him (2 Cor. 7:4), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the

pattern of Mt. 5:12.

7:7-11 A New Testament allusion to David's penitence may be found in 2 Cor. 7:7-11: " Ye were

made sorry...ye sorrowed to repentance...ye were made sorry after a Godly manner (cp. "every one

that is Godly..." , Ps.32:6)...for Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation...ye sorrowed after a

Godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what

indignation (cp. David's in 2 Sam.12:5)...what zeal...your mourning, your fervent mind" . Allusion

after allusion to David is being piled up here. The eight references to their "sorrow" in four verses is

surely a signpost back to David's intense sorrow for his sin with Bathsheba: "My sin is ever before

me (Ps. 51:3)... my sorrow is continually before me...I will be sorry for my sin...many sorrows shall

be to the wicked" who, unlike David, refused to repent (Ps. 38:17,18; 32:10). This association

between sin and sorrow is a common one (Job 9:28; 1 Tim. 6:10; Ex. 4:31; Is. 35:10. The last two

references show how Israel's sorrowing in Egypt was on account of their sinfulness). We must pause

to ask whether our consciousness of sin leads us to a like sorrowing, whether our repentance

features a similar depth of remorse. It would appear that Paul is likening Corinth to David. They too

were guilty of sexual "uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness" (2 Cor. 12:21). As David's

repentance was made in a "day of salvation", so in 2 Cor.6:2 Paul told Corinth that they were in a

similar position to him; they too had the chance of repentance. Those who had heeded this call

earlier had experienced the zeal and clear conscience which David did on his repentance (2 Cor.

7:9-11). In this case, Paul would be likening himself to Nathan the prophet. This zeal which was

seen in both David and Corinth is a sure sign of clear conscience and a joyful openness with God.

Again, we ask how much of our zeal is motivated by this, or is it just a continuation of a level of

service which we set ourselves in more spiritual days, which we now struggle to maintain for

appearances sake?

7:8 There are Biblical examples of refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken.

Recall how the Lord‘s own parents blamed Him for ‗making them anxious‘ by ‗irresponsibly‘

remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take any guilt, didn‘t apologize, and even

gently rebuked them (Lk. 2:42-51). In similar vein, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: ―Even if I made

you sorry with a letter, I do not regret it‖ (2 Cor. 7:8). He would not take guilt for their being upset

with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped sister not to ‗take it to heart‘, not to feel guilty

about it, as it seems she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her (2 Sam. 13:20).

7:9- see on Lk. 9:23-25.

7:10 ―Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of‖ by God (2 Cor. 7:10). If

we repent / change our minds, then God will not repent of His plan for saving us.

7:11 The Greek word zelos means both zeal in a good sense (2 Cor. 7:11,12; 9:2; 11:2)- and also it‘s

translated jealousy, strife, envying (Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20). Likewise, thumos is used

359

both about righteous anger, and also fits of anger which are sinful. It‘s clear enough from these

linguistic facts, quite apart from our practical experience, that zeal turns into strife far too often and

far too easily. The problem is, we so easily defend the strife, the jealousy, the anger… as righteous

zeal, Godly anger. The line seems to us very fine, although it isn‘t in God‘s eyes. I observe too often

brethren who appear so full of anger, but never reveal it openly… until it comes to some matter

connected with their religious life. And then, wow, they let it all rip on some poor person, feeling

they are justified.

7:11-15 2 Cor. 7:11-15, when properly translated, perhaps reflects Paul at his angriest and most

abrasive: ―I robbed other churches [an exaggeration!], getting money from them to be a minister to

you!...as the truth of Christ is in me- I swear that this reason to be proud will not be stopped as long

as I work in the area of Achaia! You ask me why do I do this? Do you think it‘s because I don‘t love

you? God knows I do! It‘s because what I do- and I am going to go on doing it- shuts up some

people who are trying to pretend they are as good as we are, those fakes! Such apostles are

treacherous workmen. They deck themselves out as apostles of Christ and it‘s no wonder people are

fooled… but they‘ll get what‘s coming to them!‖. Even through the barrier of words, time, culture

and distance, the abrasion of Paul in full-flow comes down through the centuries.

7:13 Paul sincerely felt the joy of others as being his personal joy (Rom. 12:15 cp. 1 Cor. 15:31; 2

Cor. 2:3). Because we are in one body, we rejoice with those who rejoice. ―We are partakers of your

joy‖, Paul could write. The comfort which Titus felt was that which Paul felt (2 Cor. 7:6,7,13);

Corinth‘s joy was Paul‘s (2 Cor. 7:13). This should ensure a true richness of experience for the

believer in Christ, sharing in the joys and sorrows, the tragedies and triumphs, of the one body on

the Lord. ―He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire‖ (Prov. 18:1 RV). This says it all. Any

separation from our brethren, whether it be from personal dislike of them or for fear of losing

friends amongst others who order us to separate from them… is all ultimately selfish.

8:2 For the Macedonians ―the abundance of their joy… abounded unto the riches of their liberality‖

(2 Cor. 8:2). Their joy for what the Lord had done for them, for the ―abundance‖ [s.w.] of His grace

and giving to them (Rom. 5:17), led to their giving to the poor.

We can give on some kind of proportionate level to what we have. Or we can give more than we

can afford; the kind of giving the Philippians are commended for (and no, Paul didn't scold them for

being irresponsible): "In their deep poverty... to their power... yea, and beyond their power" (2 Cor.

8:2). The basic message of so many of the parables is that our generosity to the Lord‘s cause should

be offered without a calculated weighing up process first of all, and with a recognition that such

giving may be contrary to all human wisdom. Thus the rich man sells all he has and buys a pearl-

he‘s left with nothing, just this useless ornament. He doesn‘t sell what he has spare, his over-and-

above... all he had went on that pearl, for the sheer joy and surpassing, all-demanding excellence

thereof. His wife, colleagues, employees- would have counted him crazy. He acted against all the

conventions of human wisdom. Likewise the shepherd leaves 99% of his flock unguarded and goes

chasing madly after the one weak, straying one. This was crazy, humanly; one per cent loss wasn‘t

unreasonable. But he risked all, for love of the one. And in this He set us a pattern for forsaking all

we have.

8:5 Paul speaks of how the believers in Macedonia "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto

us" (2 Cor. 8:5). He saw their response to the Lord as their response to him- because he appreciated

the degree to which he as their converter was a full manifestation of the Lord whom he preached.

In 2 Cor. 8:4,5 Paul parallels giving to the poor believers with giving our own selves to the Lord.

Every act of generosity to the Lord's people is a giving to Him personally. Paul had obviously

grasped the huge implications of the Lord's teaching that whenever His people are cold, thirsty, in

need... then He is in such need, and every ministration to them is a ministration to Him. 2 Cor. 8:9

teaches that our response to the Lord's sacrifice should be giving to others until we are poor,

360

reflecting the Lord's making of Himself 'poor' to the extent of being left naked and dead, hanging

upon a stake of wood. We must review all our generosity in this light. Is it a giving of our

abundance, or is it a giving until we make ourselves poor...? The practical implications of this are

huge.

8:6 Paul asked Titus to visit the Corinthians. He himself "of his own accord" decided to visit them.

But God put the idea in the heart of Titus (2 Cor. 8:6,16,17). The freewill desire of Titus was

confirmed by the hand of God operating on the heart of Titus. It could be argued that it was God

who put the idea there in the first place, foreknowing that of Titus's "own accord" he would wish to

do this work.

8:7 Unless our ‗love‘ reflects a genuine care and respect for the other person, it isn‘t love. William

Barclay suggests that the Greek word porneia, prostitution, is rooted in the verb pernumi- to sell. If

our love is the love which is bought and sold, which goes to the highest bidder, which treats its

object as a thing which can be discarded, or ‗loved‘ without truly intimate union… then it‘s actually

a form of prostitution. Each time we ditch a friend because the going got tough, withheld love

because we weren‘t getting from it what we intended… we‘re essentially showing a spirit of

prostitution rather than love. This is why love in the end must always find practical expression in a

self-sacrificial way. The Corinthians were to show the sincerity of their love [implying there can be

a fake ‗love‘] by their generosity to the poor believers in Judea (2 Cor. 8:7,8,24).

We cannot know God‘s grace without likewise ‗abounding‘ with it ourselves. This can be in acts of

generosity; the early believers ‗abounded‘ in generosity to the needy (2 Cor. 8:7- the same word

used about the abounding of God‘s grace). But the spirit of ‗abounding‘ is far more than material

generosity. We are to ‗abound‘ in the work of edifying the church (1 Cor. 14:12; 15:58); abounding

in prayer for each other (1 Thess. 3:10), rather than just praying once about someone else‘s problem

as a conscience-salving formality. Ask yourself- whether your prayer for others is of the

‗abounding‘ quality that the Lord‘s intercession was and is for you? We are to ‗abound‘ in praise-

for God‘s abounding grace abounds through us to His glory if we praise Him for that grace (2 Cor.

4:15). And so... how is your praise? A mouthing off of familiar words and lyrics, that you‘ve

hummed and hymned for years? Or the internal praise that has some real fire and flame to it? As

God makes His grace abound to us, we are to abound to every good work (2 Cor. 9:8). We are to

‗abound‘ in love to each other, as God abounds to us (1 Thess. 3:12). This is why there will never be

a grudging spirit in those who serve properly motivated by God‘s abundance to us. This super-

abounding quality in our kindness, generosity, forgiveness etc. is a feature lacking in the unbelievers

around us. If we salute our brethren only, then we do not super-abound (Mt. 5:47); if we love as the

world loves its own, then we have missed the special quality of love which the Father and Son speak

of and exemplify. This radical generosity of spirit to others is something which will mark us apart

from this world.

8:9- see on Mt. 13:46.

We have each been touched by God‘s grace, and His influence upon us leads us to reach out to

influence others by lives of grace. The grace of the Lord Jesus meant that ―though he was rich, yet

for your sakes he became poor‖ (2 Cor. 8:9). And this cannot be received passively. The

Corinthians‘ response was to make themselves poor, so that their poor Jewish brethren might be

made richer. Every person who has been enriched in the Lord Jesus will in turn respond in a life and

even a body language that somehow transforms others. Prov. 13:8 speaks of how our attitude to

wealth is a crucial factor in our eternal destiny: ―The ransom of a man‘s life are his riches‖. Just

prior to that we read in Prov. 13:7: ―There is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches‖. This

verse is actually part quoted in 2 Cor. 8:9 and Phil. 2:7, about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus

made himself poor, of no reputation, and now has been so highly exalted. Our living out of the

Lord‘s cross is shown in our making of ourselves poor. That is surely the unmistakable teaching of

this allusion.

361

Do we struggle to be truly generous to the Lord‘s cause, and to turn our words an vague feelings of

commitment into action? Corinth too were talkers, boasting of their plans to give material support to

the poor brethren in Jerusalem, but doing nothing concrete. Paul sought to shake them into action by

reminding them of ―the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes

he became poor" on the cross (2 Cor. 8:9). Corinth had few wealthy members, but Paul knew that

the cross of Christ would inspire in them a generous spirit to those even poorer than they. The richer

should be made poor by what the Lord did, Paul is saying- not harmlessly giving of their pocket

money. For He gave in ways that hurt Him, ways that were real, meaningful and thereby effective

and powerful.

To put it mildly, our experience of His death for us should lead us to be generous spirited in all

ways. In appealing for financial generosity to poorer brethren, Paul sought to inspire the Corinthians

with the picture of Christ crucified: ―For ye know the grace [gift / giving] of our Lord Jesus Christ,

that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor [Gk. a pauper], that ye through his

poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). In the light of this, we should not just be generous from the

abundance of what we have; we should become as paupers in our giving. The Lord‘s giving wasn‘t

financial; it was emotional and spiritual. And so, Paul says, both materially and in these ways, we

should likewise respond to our brethren, poorer materially or spiritually than we are. ―The very

spring of our actions is the love of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:14 Philips; it ―urges us on", NRSV).

Because in the Kingdom we will be given all the wealth that is Christ's, therefore we should sell

what we now have and give to the poor (Lk. 12:33 cp. 44 NIV). But more than this, in a sense God

has now given us the Kingdom (Lk. 12:32 NIV), and therefore we should in natural response to this

give of our blessings (in whatever form) to make the poor rich, just as Christ did to us (2 Cor. 8:9

alludes here). Basically, according to this, generosity (both of spirit and material giving) is

proportionate to our faith that we both have now and will receive the matchless riches of God's

grace in Christ. "Grace" is used by Paul in 2 Cor. to refer to both the grace God has given us and the

grace of giving which the Corinthians ought to respond to it with; as God had reached into their

lives, so they should reach into the lives of their poverty stricken brethren.

In appealing for the Corinthians to be generous, Paul points out that the Lord Jesus became a pauper

for our sakes, and therefore, because of the riches of salvation He has given to us, the least we can

do is to reach out into the lives of others with what riches we may have (2 Cor. 8:9 Gk.). This is

why in 2 Cor. 8:1,19; 9:14, Paul uses the word "grace" to mean both the grace of God and also our

grace (gifts) in works of response. Thus he talks of bringing the "grace" of the money collected for

the poor saints; he is talking about the gift they had made; but in the same context he speaks of

God's grace in Christ. If we have received the grace of God's forgiveness and salvation (and so

much more) in Christ, we must show that grace, that gift, by giving. Our heart tells us to give, our

heart is in our giving, it's a natural outcome of a believing mind (2 Cor. 9:5-8, J.B. Phillips). Our

giving is a quite natural outcome of our faith in and experience of the cross.

The suggestion has been made that because Jesus increased in favour with men, He may have gotten

on quite well in His secular life. Paul speaks about how although Jesus was rich, yet for our sakes

He became poor [a pauper, Gk.] that we through His poverty might be rich (2 Cor. 8:9). I find those

words hard to conclusively interpret. Clearly the reference is to the 'poverty' of the cross, that we

might be spiritually rich- for He doesn't enable us to get materially rich through following Him. And

yet the context of Paul's words is about the need to give up our material riches for Christ's people,

and he cites the example of Jesus to inspire us in this.

8:10 Paul pleads with Corinth to see the similarities between them and the ecclesia in the

wilderness; he wants them to personalize it all. He sees their gathering and redistribution of wealth

as exactly analogous to Israel‘s gathering of manna (2 Cor. 8:15)- and he so wishes his Corinthians

to think themselves into Israel‘s shoes. For then they would realize that as Israel had to have a

willing heart to give back to God the wealth of Egypt which He had given them, so they were to

362

have a willing heart in being generous to their poorer brethren (Ex. 35:5 = 2 Cor. 8:12). And they

would have realized that as ―last year‖ they had made this offer (2 Cor. 8:10 Gk.), so the year

before, Israel had received Egypt‘s wealth with a similar undertaking to use it for the Lord‘s cause.

As Moses had to remind them a second time of their obligations in Ex. 35, so Paul had to bring it

again before Corinth. And if they had seen these similarities, they would have got the sense of

Paul‘s lament that there was not one wise hearted man amongst them- for the ―wise hearted‖ were to

convert Israel‘s gold and silver into tools for Yahweh‘s service (Ex. 35:10 = 1 Cor. 6:5; 2 Cor.

10:12).

8:11 Paul‘s focus upon the positive is really tremendous, especially coming from a man so far

spiritually ahead of the weak Corinthians. He commends their ―readiness‖ to donate, whilst pointing

out they are more talk than action; and later speaks to others of ―our readiness‖, identifying himself

with the Corinthian brethren whose lack of actual action had got him into so many problems in

fulfilling what he had confidently promised on their behalf (2 Cor. 8:11,12,19). He even gloried to

others of their ―readiness‖ (2 Cor. 9:2), whilst clearly not turning a blind eye to their failure to

actually produce anything concrete.

8:11,12 Mk. 12:43 = 2 Cor. 8:12. Paul saw those generous ecclesias as the widow with one mite,

and also as rich Mary giving what she had (Mk. 14:8 = 2 Cor. 8:11). This reveals his sensitivity; he

knew some of them were poor, some rich. Yet he saw they were all making a real effort. And he

understood this in terms of characters in the Gospels.

8:12 The Lord taught men to give alms of such things as they had (Lk. 11:41); as we have

opportunity / ability, we must be generous to all men (Gal. 6:10). These passages are teaching a

spirit of generosity; and even a sister with literally no money can have a generous spirit. The key

passage is 2 Cor. 8:12: "If there be first (i.e. most importantly) a willing mind, it is accepted

according to what a man hath, and not according to that he hath not‖. Every man was to contribute

to the building of the tabernacle (cp. the ecclesia) with a willing heart (Ex. 25:2- Paul surely alludes

here). They weren't told: 'Whoever is willing and able to contribute, please do so'. And yet the

majority of us have at least something materially; and as we have been blessed, so let us give.

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart (generosity is a mental attitude), so let him give;

not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver". See on Acts 11:29.

Our intentions to do good can be counted as if they were performed. Thus if we have a generous

spirit, and would love to be generous to the needy, but just can‘t do it – it‘s counted as if we‘ve done

it. The generous poor at Corinth are the parade example: ―For if there first be a willing mind, it is

accepted according to that a man has [to give], and not according to that he hasn‘t got [to give]‖ (2

Cor. 8:12).

363

8:15 They were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (Ex. 16:4,19,20). There was to

be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (Ex. 16:8; 2 Cor. 8:15). But

we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size [if any

family at all]... mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some

extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to

anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going

to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to

trust in God's day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-

today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. Let's give full weight to the Lord's command to pray

for only "our daily bread", the daily rations granted to a soldier on active duty. It's almost

impossible to translate this term adequately in English. In the former USSR and Communist East

Germany (DDR), there was the idea that nobody in a Socialist state should go hungry. And so if you

were hungry in a restaurant after eating, you had the right to ask for some food, beyond what you

paid for. In the former East Germany, the term Sättigungsbeilage was used for this in restaurants-

the portion of necessity. It's this food we should ask God for- the food to keep us alive, the food

which a Socialist restaurant would give you for free. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of anything

more than this. It's an eloquent essay in what our attitude to wealth, materialism and long term self-

provision ought to be.

8:16 There is an urgency in the mediation of mercy towards others. When Paul thanks God that

Titus has a heart of ―earnest care‖ for the Corinthians, he uses a Greek word [spoude] which

literally means ―speed‖, and is elsewhere translated ―haste‖ – as well as ―haste‖ and ―business‖ (2

Cor. 8:16). The heart that really cares will be characterized by a speedy and quick response, not a

careful weighing up of a situation, nor a resignation of responsibilities to ponderous committees.

See on Lk. 14:5.

8:24 Paul dealt with a very difficult situation in Corinth by being totally open hearted, when his

natural sense must have been to be very cagey with them (2 Cor. 6:11). Indeed, some of his most

revealing autobiographical passages are found in 2 Corinthians, as he opens his heart to them. And

he encouraged them to likewise openly show before the ecclesias their love for others (2 Cor. 8:24

s.w.). He surely had in mind the Lord‘s teaching that our light should shine before others, because

all things will ultimately be brought into the open (Lk. 8:16,17). This doesn‘t just refer to preaching;

it refers to an open shining out of whatever spirituality we have, to everyone.

9:2- see on Jn. 19:39; Rom. 11:14; 2 Cor. 8:11.

Paul could bid men follow him, that they might follow Christ. And the inspired word does bid us go

down the road of comparing our behaviour with that of others. Paul boasted of the Corinthians‘

enthusiasm in planning to make donations in order to provoke the ecclesias in Macedonia to a like

generosity. Their zeal ―provoked very many‖ (2 Cor. 9:2). We should provoke one another to love

and good works, by example (Heb. 10:24).

9:5- see on 2 Cor. 8:9.

Paul exhorted the Corinthians to give money to the Jerusalem Poor Fund, ―as a matter of bounty,

and not as of covetousness‖ (2 Cor. 9:5). We can give money generously, apparently, but do so from

a motive of covetousness- the very opposite of true generosity and acceptable sacrifice. We can

covet respect, admiration from our brethren... and not give as a pure and private reflection of the

endless grace we have received.

9:7 Paul wrote of how the abounding joy of the poor brethren in Macedonia abounded unto a

generosity which was actually beyond their means (2 Cor. 8:2). And when he goes on to speak of

how God loves a ―cheerful giver‖ (2 Cor. 9:7), he uses a word which James Strong defines as

meaning ‗hilarious‘. And yet our giving tends to so often be a matter of phlegmatic planning, to

salve an otherwise uneasy conscience. But the picture Paul paints is of a man or woman hilarious in

364

their giving to the poor. This isn‘t the giving which watches for the response, and is offended if it

isn‘t what we expect. This is a picture of giving from the joy of giving, reflecting the Father‘s

generosity to us. And this, Paul says, God loves. Quite simply. We touch the heart of Almighty God

by such giving. And yet this hilarious giving isn‘t merely the emotion of a moment, the sort of thing

played upon in many a Pentecostal gathering. It is to be a giving as a person ‗purposes in their heart‘

(2 Cor. 9:7); and again, Strong challenges us with his definition of the Greek word translated

‗purposes‘: ―to choose for oneself before another thing (prefer), that is, (by implication) to propose

(intend)‖. But having made this conscious decision, to put, say, Sister Svetlana‘s need before your

preference for a new piece of furniture, we are to perform the actual giving with the hilarity of the

cheerful giver. And as we know, Paul makes the point that such acts of generosity are acts of

sowing, bringing forth fruits of righteousness; and the Lord will grant us yet more seed to sow in the

same way. Forsaking all we have may not mean we are left with nothing.

9:8- see on 2 Cor. 8:7.

9:10 Paul wrote a telling comment about wealth in 2 Cor. 9:10. He likens generosity to sowing seed.

If we do this for our poor brethren, then God will multiply our seed for sowing (RV); He will give

us yet more with which to be generous with. We are ―enriched unto all liberality‖ (2 Cor. 9:11 RV)-

this is why we receive anything, to be liberal with it. And thus he writes in conclusion of ―the

proving of you by this ministration‖ (2 Cor. 9:13 RV). This brief but vital teaching of Paul here is a

proof of our spirituality. Our response to ministering to others is a proving of us. It‘s as simple and

as clear as that. And remember that Paul was writing these words to a poor ecclesia, amongst whom

there were not many wealthy folk (1 Cor. 1:26-28). Paul speaks of joy as a motive for generosity.

9:11- see on 2 Cor. 6:10.

The manner in which Paul alludes to the Gospels also indicates that this was the result of the Spirit

using Paul's human memory and absorption of the Gospels, rather than him just being used as a Fax

machine by the Spirit. Thus if you analyze the data in our previous study, it is evident that there are

groups of allusions to the Gospels in Paul's letters. Thus there may be several allusions in one

chapter, none in the next, and then another group in the next chapter. This is the sort of pattern one

would expect from a human memory. Sometimes 1 verse in the Gospels is alluded to by Paul in

different ways in different letters. Thus Mt. 5:16 ("let your light shine before men") is applied by

him to within the ecclesia (2 Cor. 9:11,13) and to among the world (1 Cor. 14:25). This has the ring

of truth about it. I often take the same verse to mean different things, or I change my view

concerning its application. This doesn't mean Paul wasn't inspired; it just indicates that his personal

interpretation of the Gospels was used by God.

9:13 Initially, the Corinthians decided of their own volition to take up a collection for their poor

Jewish brethren. Paul later encouraged them in this when their will to carry it out flagged, but the

initial inspiration was from "the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of

Christ" (2 Cor. 9:13 NIV). That Gospel doesn't state that to obey it, one must give money to the

poor believers in Jerusalem. But Paul perceived that effectively it did; this was, in their context, part

and parcel of confessing the Gospel.

9:19 Paul made himself a slave in order to save others (2 Cor. 9:19), just as the Lord made himself a

slave on the cross to save us (Phil. 2:5-8). Our work of saving others is therefore part of our sharing

in the Lord‘s cross.

9:20 He had to become like a Jew in order to save them, although he was Jewish (2 Cor. 9:20). He

carefully kept parts of the law (Acts 18:18; 21:26; 1 Cor. 8:13). To the Jew he became [again] as a

Jew; and to the Gentiles he became as a Gentile (1 Cor. 9:20). He acted ―To them that are without

law, as without law...‖. He was ―dead to the law‖ (Gal. 2:19). He was a Jew but considered he had

renounced it, but he became as a Jew to them to help them. He saw no difference between Jew and

Gentile (Gal. 3:27-29) but he consciously acted in a Jewish or Gentile way to help those who still

365

perceived themselves after the flesh. ―... (being not without law to God, but under the law to

Christ)‖ (1 Cor 9:21). See on Acts 23:6.

10:1 "I beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ" is surely a reference to the Lord's

description of Himself as being, there and then, "meek and lowly of heart" (Mt. 11:29; 2 Cor. 10:1).

Paul's point is that as the Lord was in His life, so He is now, in His heavenly glory.

10:3,4 See on Josh. 6:10.

10:5 Isaiah is full of references to the proud being ‗made low‘ by judgment- the same Hebrew word

is common: Is. 10:33; 13:11; 25:11; 26:5. Perhaps Paul had this in mind when he said that our

preaching is a bringing down of every high thing that is exalted against God (2 Cor. 10:5). Our

message is basically that we must be humbled one way or the other- either by our repentance and

acceptance of the Gospel today, or through the experience of condemnation at the day of judgment.

We‘re calling people to humility. And we must ask whether the content and style of our preaching

really does that.

Like John, Paul makes a seamless connection between defending true doctrine, and spiritually

minded living in practice. Through destroying arguments and ―every pretension that exalteth itself

against the knowledge of God‖, we can ―bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of

Christ‖ (2 Cor. 10:3-5 RV). This is because, as Neville Smart put it, ―of the radical part played in

the salvation of the individual by the ideas and beliefs he holds in his mind. They are in fact the

roots from which his fixed attitudes and his daily actions spring, and from which they take their

particular tone and colouring‖.

―Though we walk in the flesh (cp. Paul's recognition of his fleshly side in Rom. 7)... the weapons of

our (mental) warfare are not carnal (of our fleshly man), but mighty through God to the pulling

down of strong holds". These strong holds which are pulled down are defined in v.5 as

"imaginations... every thought" which have to be 'cast (cp. 'pulled') down'. Those strong holds exist

in the recesses of our natural minds. Rom. 6:13 encourages us not to yield our minds as weapons of

sin, but as weapons of God (Rom. 6:13 AVmg.). Our thinking is a weapon, which both sides in this

conflict can use. The sinful man within us is "warring against the law of my (spiritual) mind, and

bringing me into captivity to the law of sin" (Rom. 7:23). Yet 2 Cor. 10:5 describes our spiritual

man as overthrowing our carnal man, and bringing those thoughts into captivity to the Christ man.

The impression is created of constant attrition, with victories for both sides. In Rom. 7 the

impression is given that the carnal man is winning; whilst 2 Cor. 10:2-5 paints the picture of the

Christ man triumphant. To get this picture over, perhaps the Spirit used a spiritually depressed Paul

in Rom. 7, and a triumphant Paul at the time of writing 2 Cor. 10?

10:6 The more God's word abides in us, the more we will know our sinfulness (1 Jn. 1:10). Thus

Paul speaks as if when Corinth are more obedient, he will reveal further to them the extent of their

weakness (2 Cor. 10:6).

Paul speaks of how he had received, as it were, a measuring line which enabled him to preach in

certain areas, including Corinth. When the spiritual growth of the Corinthian converts was

complete, then his measuring line would be extended, and the Lord would allow him "to preach the

gospel in the regions beyond you" (this is how I would interpret 2 Cor. 10:6,13-16 RV). This

teaches what many of us have observed in practice in the work of the Gospel: the Lord's blessing

only attends our efforts to further the Gospel if real spiritual fruit is being brought forth in those

already converted. Thus according to the freewill response of believers to the call of true

spirituality, the call of others to the Gospel can be limited.

10:7 There's definitely a tendency to think that we can have a relationship with the Father and Son,

and this is all that matters. John countered this tendency, by arguing that "If a man say [and

apparently this was being said by some brethren], "I love God", and hates his brother, he is a liar;

for he who loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen" (1

366

Jn. 4:20). Paul foresaw this same tendency in 2 Cor. 10:7: "If any man trust to himself that he is

Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's". "Of

himself" suggests that our internal thinking, our self-perception, of ourselves as "in Christ" cannot

be valid unless we perceive "Christ" as having our brethren "in Him" also. And Paul's own example

showed what he meant; for in all his hardships he was comforted not just by the Father and Son

directly, but by the faith of his brethren- even if that faith was weak (e.g. 1 Thess. 3:7).

―If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that as he is

Christ's, even so are we Christ's" (2 Cor. 10:7). If we are sure we are the Lord's, let's remember that

we aren't the only person He died for. Therefore we must receive one another, as Christ received us,

with all our inadequacies of understanding and behaviour (Rom. 15:7). We are thereby taught of

God to love one another; we must forgive and forbear each other, as the Lord did and does with us

(1 Thess. 4:9; Eph. 4:32).

Any serious study of a Bible passage requires us to look at it in different translations and make

some effort to understand the real meaning of the original- for sometimes the sense of a passage can

completely change, depending on translation (especially in Job). Thus in the AV of 2 Cor. 10:7,

Paul is made to ask a question: "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance?". In the RV,

this becomes an affirmation: ―Ye look at the things that are before your face". But in other versions,

it becomes a blunt demand from Paul that the Corinthians should open their eyes to the true facts:

"Look at things which stare you in the face!" (J.B. Phillips).

10:10 The Roman Governor Felix trembled at Paul's incisive logic- even in his prison uniform (Acts

24:25). Hardened Agrippa was almost persuaded by Paul, on his own public admission, to become a

Christian (Acts 26:28). The Galatian converts would have pulled out their eyes from their sockets

and given them to partially sighted Paul (Gal. 4:15). The aggressive crowd, baying for Paul's blood,

were held in one of history's most uncanny silences by the sheer personality of that preacher. He

beckoned with his hand, and " there was made a great silence...and when they heard how (Gk.) he

spake... they kept the more silence" (Acts 21:39-22:2). Pagans at Lystra were so overcome by his

oratory that they were convinced he was the god Mercury come down to earth; it took Paul quite

some effort to persuade them that he was an ordinary man (Acts 14:12). This was the man Paul. He

had undoubted ability as a preacher. In passing, the Corinthians mocked his weak physical presence;

and yet Paul had undoubted charisma and power of personality, right up to the end. Was it not that

he consciously suppressed the power of his personality when he visited Corinth? This was humility

and self-knowledge indeed. Indeed, his reasoning in 2 Cor. 10,11 is that he could present himself to

Corinth as quite a different brother Paul than what he did.

2 Cor. 10:10: ―His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible‖. Yet this is hardly how

Paul comes over at his trials. The conclusion surely is that Paul made himself a weak person in his

dealings with Corinth. He could truly be all things to all people, he wasn‘t constrained by his natural

personality type as so many of us allow ourselves to be. This is why Paul could go on in v. 11 to

warn Corinth that the next time he visits them, he won‘t be weak. He will ‗be‘ as he is in his letters.

In all this we see the full import of the sacrifice and crucifixion of self of which the Lord repeatedly

speaks. Putting meaning into words, this means that we will genuinely ‗be‘ the person we need to be

in order to help others.

"His letters, say they (Paul's detractors in the new Israel) are weighty and powerful; but his bodily

presence is weak, and his speech contemptible... though I be rude in speech... Christ sent me... to

preach the Gospel: not with wisdom of words (mg. speech)" (2 Cor. 10:10; 11:6; 1 Cor. 1:17). This

is all the language of Moses, Paul‘s hero. Paul would have remembered Stephen saying how Moses

was formerly full of worldly wisdom and "mighty in words" (Acts 7:22), even though Moses felt " I

am not eloquent (mg. a man of words)... I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (Ex. 4:10).

Maybe Paul likewise was mighty in words and wisdom, but felt like Moses that he wasn‘t. He

367

allowed Moses‘ legendary humility to personally inspire him, rather than just admire it from afar,

ticking the box, saying yes, Moses was humble…

It was believed that nature and destiny had decreed your place, and there was to be no questioning

of it. Thus according to the first century principle of 'physiognomics', a slave was born with a

muscular, servile body, an upper class female Roman was born beautiful, etc. The idea of education

was to train them up to be as they were intended to be by nature. The ancient world believed that all

that was decreed and predestined by nature would have some sort of physical reality in the

appearance of a person. Hence the challenging nature of Paul's command not to judge by the

outward appearance; and again, Divine providence overturned all this by choosing Paul as such a

"chosen vessel", when his outward appearance and manner of speaking were so weak and

unimpressive, literally 'lacking strength' (2 Cor. 10:10).

10:15 Paul clearly had a purpose- to spread the Gospel in a semi circle around the Roman empire (2

Cor. 10:15), beginning from Jerusalem, through Asia and Italy, then Spain (Rom. 15:19), North

Africa and back to Jerusalem. Speaking of how he planned his journeys, he comments in 2 Cor.

1:17: “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I

purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes yes, and no no?‖. Again we see a

definite purpose, not the kind of human intention which vacillates between yes and no; for this is

inimical to the person who has true purpose. The mission in our minds, the path ever before us,

makes our decision making so much clearer than it is for those who dither over which flavour coffee

to have tonight... Truly could Paul say at the end: ―But you have followed my teaching, my conduct,

and my purpose in life; you have observed my faith, my patience, my love, my endurance, my

persecutions, and my sufferings‖ (2 Tim. 3:10,11). And he is set up as a model for each of us (1

Tim. 1:16).

10:16 Paul spoke of how both he and other brethren had their specific ―line" or sphere in which they

were intended to witness (2 Cor. 10:16 cp. Ps. 19:4 AVmg.; Am. 7:17). We each have ours, whether

it be the people who live in our block of flats, an area of our own country or city; or another part of

the world.

10:18 commends- see on Lk. 12:8; 1 Cor. 4:5.

11:2- see on Mt. 3:7; Acts 13:9; 1 Cor. 15:10.

Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 11:2 of ‗presenting you‘ at the last day- he uses the same Greek work in a

context of ‗standing before‘ the judgment seat (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 4:14). Christ will present us to

Himself at judgment day, as an unspotted bride / church (Eph. 5:27)- but Paul perceived that Christ

will achieve this by working through people and pastors like himself. Paul aimed to ―present‖ [s.w.]

every man perfect in Christ by warning and exhorting them (Col. 1:28). We will present ourselves

(2 Tim. 2:15 s.w.) to Him at the judgment; but He presents us, and others who have laboured for us

will present us, because Christ will have worked through them to present us to Himself unspotted.

The cross results in the suffering Lord being able to ―present us holy and unblameable and

unreproveable in his sight‖ at the day of judgment (Col. 1:22; Eph. 5:27). Having said that, Paul

goes right on to say that his goal is to ―present every man perfect in Christ Jesus‖ (Col. 1:22,28; 2

Cor. 11:2). The sufferings of Jesus were not lost on Paul. He understood that he likewise must share

in them, in order to ―present‖ his brethren acceptable at the last day. For Paul, the events of Calvary

were not far away in time and place, a necessary piece of theology... They compelled him to act, to

stay up late at night preparing something, to pray, to live the life of true concern for others, to warn,

encourage, write, endlessly review his draft letters to get them right, search through Scripture for

relevant guidance for his friends… this was the life begotten in him by the cross. As the Lord died

to present us ―perfect‖, so Paul laboured to present us perfect. And neither the Lord Jesus nor Paul

are mere history for us. This is all our pattern… In one sense, we present ourselves before the

judgment seat (Rom. 14:10 s.w.; AV ―stand before‖). In other ways, we are presented there by our

368

elders, e.g. Paul; and yet above all, we are presented there spotless by the Lord‘s matchless

advocacy for us. And of course the essence of judgment is being worked out right now, as we daily

present ourselves to the Lord, as the bodies of the animals were presented to the priest for inspection

before being offered (Rom. 12:1). We are presenting ourselves to the judge right now.

11:5- see on 1 Tim. 1:16; Acts 23:6.

He ―supposed‖, the same word translated ―impute‖ as in ‗imputed righteousness‘, that he was

amongst the chiefest apostles (2 Cor. 11:5). He knew this was how his Lord counted him. But he felt

himself as less than the least of all saints (Eph. 3:8). ―For I am the least of the apostles, that am not

meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am

what I am‖ (1 Cor. 15:9-10).

11:6 Paul can say that they surely know what ―knowledge‖ he has, because he has been thoroughly

manifested [Gk. phaneroo] to them in absolutely every way (2 Cor. 11:6 Gk.); there was nothing he

knew which he hadn‘t shared with them. He is so open with them that he doesn‘t just write in a

political, guarded way to them, watching every word.

11:7- see on Phil. 4:16; Lk. 3:5.

Paul told Corinth that he had abased himself so that they might be exalted (2 Cor. 11:7). This is one

of Paul's many allusions to the Gospels; this time to Lk. 14:11; 18:14, which teach that he who

abases himself will himself be exalted. But Paul was abasing himself so that Corinth could be

exalted, so that they could share the exaltation he would receive on account of his humility. In all

this, of course, he reflected to his brethren the very essence of the attitude of the Lord Jesus for

toward us.

In refusing funding for his work from the Corinthians, he abased himself that they might be exalted-

all language of the crucifixion (2 Cor. 11:7 cp. Phil. 2:8,9). Thus his refusing of legitimate help to

make his way easier was an enactment in himself of the cross.

We live in a world which has made the fulfilment of personal aims of paramount importance. It has

affected the fabric of every society, and become embedded in every mind. To live to serve, to put

oneself down that others may rise… this is strange indeed. John the Baptist had this spirit, for he

rejoiced that he decreased whilst the Lord‘s cause increased. Paul abased himself that others might

be exalted (2 Cor. 11:7), after the pattern of the cross. God‘s gentleness, His humility / bowing

down (Heb.) has made us great, lifted us up (Ps. 18:35). And we respond to it by humbling

ourselves.

11:9- see on 2 Cor. 13:4.

11:14

An Angel of Light Comments

1. It is also commonly believed that Satan was originally an angel of light and then transformed

himself into a serpent or became a sinful angel of darkness. This is the exact opposite of what this

verse teaches. This transforming of Satan occurred in Paul‘s time – not in Eden, nor in 1914. The

popular idea is that Satan was punished for rebellion by being turned from an Angel of light into

some kind of ‗dark Angel‘. But this verse states that Satan transforms himself, in the time of Paul in

the first century. Yet the orthodox view of Satan is that he was an Angel of light who was punished

by God to become an Angel of darkness. Yet here Paul is saying that in the first century, in the city

of Corinth, here on planet earth, ‗Satan‘ transformed himself into an Angel of light. Transformed

himself from what? From his fallen state back into his state before he fell? In this case God‘s

supposed punishment of Satan has little meaning if Satan is able to transform himself back into his

previous state.

369

2. An ―angel‖ in some cases can refer to a man

3. Concerning Satan‘s ministers, we are told ―whose end shall be according to their works‖. This

recalls Paul‘s words about false Christians in Philippians 3:19: ―whose end is destruction‖, and also

Revelation 20:12–13, which speaks of the resurrected dead believers being ―judged every man

according to their works‖. If Satan‘s ministers are to be judged and destroyed, then they cannot be

angels, seeing that angels cannot die or be destroyed (Lk. 20:35,36).

4. These verses speak as though the believers to whom Paul was writing were in contact, literally,

with Satan‘s ministers. The believers were being troubled by ―false apostles‖, not sinful angels.

Suggested Explanations

1. Verse 4 speaks of some who had entered the church preaching a wrong Gospel and another Jesus.

This sets the context for the rest of the chapter. A comparison of verses 13 and 15 clearly shows that

these ―false apostles‖ are the ―ministers of Satan‖ – thus they are men, not angels.

2. ―Satan‖ often refers to the Jewish system, especially in its being opposed to Christianity (see

section 2–4 ―The Jewish Satan‖). These ministers of Satan were therefore people working on behalf

of the Jews who were infiltrating the Christian churches spreading wrong doctrine. There are

frequent references to this infiltration and undermining:

– ―False brethren (cp. ―false apostles‖) unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our

liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage‖ (Gal. 2:4). ―Bondage‖

in Galatians refers to the bondage of keeping the Law of Moses (Gal. 3:23; 4:3,9). ―After my

(Paul‘s) departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock‖ (Acts 20:29 –

the leaders of apostate Israel are likened to wolves in Ez. 22:27 and Zeph. 2:3).

– As there were false Jewish prophets among Israel in the wilderness, so there would be the same

types among the Christian Jews to whom Peter wrote (1 Pet. 1:1), ―who privily shall bring in

damnable heresies‖ (2 Pet. 2:1).

– ―These are spots in your feasts of charity (i.e. the love–feasts; the Breaking of Bread), when they

feast with you, feeding themselves without fear...these speak evil of those things which they know

not‖ (Jude 12,10), i.e. they spoke falsely about Christianity, which they really knew little about.

– ―His (Paul‘s) letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak‖ (2 Cor.

10:10). Thus Paul showed that he was ―not ignorant of (Satan‘s) devices‖ (2 Cor. 2:11) to

undermine Christianity.

– ―Him whose coming in (Greek) is after the working of Satan‖ (2 Thess. 2:9) probably refers to

these people too. Their possession of ―all power and signs‖ was due may be to some of the apostate

Jewish Christians still possessing the miraculous Spirit gifts (as in Heb. 6:4–6; 1 Cor. 14).

3. The apostles or ministers of John are called his ―angels‖ – Lk. 7:19,24 (cp. 2 Cor. 11:14–15).

Thus we can understand the parallel between the apostles of Christ and the angel (apostle) of light.

Remember, too, that Christ is the light (Jn. 1:8; 8:12).

False apostles transforming into Apostles of Christ

Satan transforming into Angel (apostle) of light

(Christ)

His ministers transforming into ministers (angels) of

righteousness (Christ)

4. The application of these ministers of Satan to Jews infiltrating the Christians is confirmed by Paul

saying in 2 Cor. 11:22 that he was also a Jew as they were.

370

5. That the ministers of righteousness are to be interpreted as ministers, or apostles, of Christ, is

confirmed by Paul saying that he was also a minister of Christ, as they claimed to be (:23).

6. The individual ―Satan‖ in the singular referred to in :14, can either be the Jewish system as a

whole trying to give a Christian facade (an angel of light, i.e. a minister of Christ, the true light), or

an individual leader of the Jewish system. Bearing in mind the reference of ―the prince of this

world‖ to the High Priest (see on Jn. 12:31), there may be a reference here to some unrecorded

pronouncement by the High Priest concerning Christianity which would give the implication that a

bridge could be built between Judaism and Christianity.

7. The ―deceitful workers‖ of :13 who were ministers of the Satan are clearly defined in Philippians

3:2 as ―evil workers... of the circumcision‖, i.e. those who were teaching that Christians had to be

circumcised and thus keep the Law of Moses to be saved. This faction of Jewish believers in the

church is described as ―them which were of the circumcision‖ (Gal. 2:12).

8. It needs to be recognized that Paul‘s writings very often allude to extant Jewish and Gentile

literature, sometimes quoting verbatim from them, in order to correct popular ideas. Thus Paul

quotes Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Corinthians 15:33) and Epimenides (Titus 1:12) – he uses

odd phrases out of these uninspired writings by way of illustration. I‘ve shown elsewhere (1)

that

much of the Biblical literature does this kind of thing, e.g. the entire Pentateuch is alluding to the

various myths and legends of creation and origins, showing what the truth is. The fact Paul‘s 21st

century readers are largely ignorant of that literature, coupled with Paul‘s rabbinic writing style not

using specific quotation rubric or quotation marks, means that this point is often missed. It‘s rather

like our reading of any historical literature – parts of it remain hard to understand because we

simply don‘t appreciate the historical and immediate context in which it was written. When Paul

speaks of Satan being transformed as a bright Angel, he‘s actually quoting from the first century AD

Life of Adam and Eve (12–16) which speculated that ‗Satan‘ refused to worship the image of God in

Adam and therefore he came to earth as a bright Angel and deceived Eve: ―Satan was wroth and

transformed himself into the brightness of angels, and went away to the river‖ (2)

. Paul‘s quoting

from that document; although in the preceding verse (2 Cor. 11:3) he has stressed that ―the serpent

beguiled Eve by his subtilty‖. He‘s reaffirming the Genesis account, which doesn‘t speak of a

personal Satan, but rather simply of a serpent, created as one of the ―beasts of the field‖. So we

could paraphrase Paul here: ‗I know that the Jewish writings say that the serpent wasn‘t really a

serpent, it was ‗Satan‘, and was actually in the form of a bright Angel. Now that‘s not the case –

let‘s stick with Genesis, which speaks of a literal serpent. But OK, in the same way as in the Jewish

myth Satan became a bright, persuasive Angel, well, these false teachers from the Jews appear as

wonderful, spiritual people – but following them will lead you to the same catastrophe as fell upon

Eve as a result of being deceived‘.

9. The way Paul uses the word metaschematizo [―transform‖] three times is interesting – ―the stress

is so heavy here because Paul is turning their own word against his opponents‖ (3)

. If this is the case,

then we would yet another example [of which there are so many in Corinthians] of Paul using a

term used by his enemies in order to answer them – which would mean that he is not necessarily

agreeing with it. Indeed the apocryphal Jewish Apocalypse of Moses claims that because Satan

appeared as such a dazzling, shining Angel, Eve was inevitably deceived by him. Paul here would

thus be alluding to this idea – not that his allusion means that he supported the idea.

Notes (1) See my The Real Devil Digressions 2, 3 and 4: Jude and the Book of Enoch, Romans and the

Wisdom of Solomon, and The Intention and Context of Genesis 1–3.

371

(2) For references, see Susan Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark‟s Gospel (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1998) p. 45. The Life of Adam and Eve was apparently widely quoted and alluded to in

the first century – see throughout M. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Atlanta:

Scholar‘s Press, 1992).

(3) Neil Forsyth, Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) p. 269.

11:15 The lazy servant was punished out of his own mouth (Lk. 19:22); and even in Job's time, this

principle of Divine condemnation was known (Job 9:20; 15:6). The Judaizers too were to have an

"end [that] will correspond to their deeds" (2 Cor. 11:14,15 RSV).

Jewish theories of the time accept that God punished the Satan figure, but the demons got around

the punishment and tempt men to sin – as if God somehow was outwitted in the supposed struggle.

The Apocalypse of Adam likewise minimizes human sin by claiming that ‗Satan‘ in fact raped Eve,

thus leading to the fall; the Apocalypse of Moses claims that because Satan appeared as such a

dazzling, shining Angel, Eve was inevitably deceived by him. Note in passing that Paul alludes to

this idea in 2 Cor. 11:15 – not that his allusion means that he supported the idea.

11:17- see on 1 Cor. 7:11.

11:21 A sarcasm about Paul‘s humanly impressive encomium [see on Gal. 1:10] is to be found at

more length in 2 Cor. 11:21-12:10. All the classic elements of the encomium are there- his origin

and birth, training, accomplishments, comparison with others etc. But then he says that those who

compare themselves with others (synkrinontes) are fools (2 Cor. 10:12), and that he himself has

been speaking as a fool, a raving madman. That was what he thought of an encomium after the

flesh. This is all a needful lesson for our generation, surrounded as we are by pressure to trust in

education, achievements, being humanly cool and impressive. Paul goes on to say that actually, he

prefers as a Christian to "boast of things that show my weakness" (2 Cor. 11:30). Instead of

speaking of glorious "deeds of the body", he speaks of his labours, imprisonments, beatings etc.

And thus he draws out the paradox, incredible for the first century mind- his real strength and power

is in his weakness, for it was this that made him trust in God and in the grace of the Lord Jesus (2

Cor. 12:10). Instead of impressing those around him, Paul sought to impress the Father and Son

above. His strength was not, as society then thought, in what he had inherited and developed from

the communities into which he was born- it was rather in the grace of God transforming his

character. His patron, his teacher and elder, was the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from

the dead (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 8:11), rather than any visible 'elder' of his natural communities.

11:24 When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about

(2 Cor. 11:24,25 = Mt. 21:35).

The pattern of preaching which we see in the Father and in the Lord Jesus must be our model. He

identified with us in order to 'get through' to us; the power of His personality and work rests in the

fact that He was genuinely human. God Himself chose this method, of manifestation in a Son our

our nature, in order to redeem us. We can do likewise, in identifying with our audience; living as

they do when in a mission field; learning their language, both literally and metaphorically; patient

bearing with those suffering from depression, Aspergers, alcoholism, various neuroses... to win

them. Thus to the Gentiles Paul became as a Gentile; and as a Jew in order that he might win them

who were under the law (1 Cor. 9:20). This is exemplified by the fact that he underwent synagogue

floggings (2 Cor. 11:24)- which were only administered to Jews who willingly submitted to the

punishment because they were orthodox Jews. This was the extent to which Paul became as a Jew in

the hope of winning the Jews. Fly by preachers, seeking to establish a colony of their home base,

will never achieve much lasting success. Paul would pay any price in order to identify with his

audience, in order to win them to Christ. He was living out the spirit of Jesus, who likewise

identified Himself with us to the maximum extent in order to save us. It was a profitable exercise for

me to research the background of Paul‘s statement that five times he received ―forty lashes minus

372

one‖ at the hands of the Jews (2 Cor. 11:24). This was a synagogue punishment, based on Dt.

25:2,3, which could only be administered to members of the synagogue community- and apparently,

the members had the right under local Roman law to resign from the synagogue and escape the

punishment. It would‘ve been far easier for Paul to disown Judaism and insist he was not a member

of any synagogue. But he didn‘t. Why? Surely because this was the extent to which he was willing

to be all things to all men, to truly be a Jew in order to save the Jews. And we too can chose daily

the extent to which we identify ourselves with those whom we seek to save. It‘s not simply the case

of a Western missionary suffering privations along with the impoverished local population to whom

he or she seeks to preach. It‘s about us each getting involved in the mess of others‘ lives, at great

personal cost, in order to show true solidarity with them, on which basis we can more effectively

witness to them. This is surely the way in which we are to ‗love the world‘; this inhuman world, this

enormous collection of desperate, lonely people, into whose mundane experiences we can enter

simply through genuine, caring, person-to-person encounter. And by doing this we will find

ourselves. For it seems to me that the truly creative and original personalities, the Lord Jesus being

the supremest, are those who give of themselves in order to enter into the lives and sufferings of

others. And that, by the way, may explain why there are so few truly freethinking minds. Paul didn‘t

just love the Jewish people in theory, he didn‘t draw a distinction between the Jews as persons, and

their role or status before God. He loved them as persons, and so he suffered for them in order to

save them.

11:25 Paul was ever aware of his own proneness to failure. He saw himself as tempted to be like the

man in the parable who thought he should have more, because he had laboured more abundantly

than the others (Mt. 20:12 Gk. = 2 Cor. 11:25).

Paul endured one of the most traumatic lives ever lived- beaten with rods, shipwrecked, sleepless,

cold, naked, betrayed, robbed, beaten, and so much of this isn‘t recorded (e.g. the three shipwrecks

and two of the beatings with rods he speaks of in 2 Cor. 11 aren‘t mentioned in Acts). And yet he

implies that even more than all that, he felt the pressure of care for his brethren in the churches. His

heart so bled for them… Paul lived a traumatic life, lived with weakness, fear, trembling, tears,

distress, dying daily, burdened beyond measure, despairing of life, having the sentence of death,

sleeplessness… and all this would have had quite some effect upon him nervously. Almost certainly

it would have lead him to be depressive, and this may explain some of these flashes of anger. Yet

these flecks of pride and anger reflect something of Paul's former self. He is described as fuming out

hatred against the Christians like an animal; he was driven by hate and anger. Stephen's death

sentence was against Pharisaic principles; and it was a studied rejection of the more gentle, tolerant

attitude taught by Gamaliel, Paul's early mentor ("though I distribute all my belonging to feed the

poor..." is Paul virtually quoting Gamaliel- he clearly was aware of his stance). People like Paul

who come from strict, authoritarian backgrounds can have a tendency to anger, and yet in Paul there

seems also to have operated an inferiority complex, a longing for power, and a repressed inner guilt.

Although Paul changed from an angry man to one dominated by love, to the extent that he could

write hymns of love such as 1 Cor. 13, there were times when under provocation the old bitterness

and anger flashed back. We too have these moments, and yet in the fact that Paul too experienced

them even in spiritual maturity, we have some measure of comfort.

11:27 Paul loved Israel with the love of Christ: he describes his hunger, thirst, nakedness and loss of

all things in the very language used about Israel's condemnation (2 Cor. 11:27 alludes Dt. 28:48). In

other words, he saw himself as somehow bearing their punishment for apostasy in his own life, as if

he was some kind of suffering representative for them.

11:28 Paul identified his biggest pressure as "the care of all the churches" which he said 'came upon

(Gk. to throng / mob) (him) daily' (2 Cor. 11:28)- as if he woke up each morning and had these

anxieties thronging his mind.

11:29- see on 1 Cor. 8:9.

373

The word he uses for ―weak" is one which features frequently in his writings, and it nearly always

refers to the spiritually weak (Rom. 4:19; 14:1,2,21; 1 Cor. 8:9,11,12). He was so sensitive to his

brethren that when he considered their spiritual weakness, he felt the same. He identified with them,

he could put his arm round someone who was all slipping way and say ―I‘m with you" and so

evidently mean it. He had a genuine and obvious sense of solidarity with them. He wasn‘t critical of

them to the extent that he made a barrier between him and them. They knew his disapproval of their

ways, but yet it was so evident that his heart bled for them. And when Paul saw a brother being

offended, he burnt. His heart burnt and bled as he saw someone drifting away with a chip on their

shoulder. He didn‘t just shrug and think Well that‘s up to them, their choice. He cared for them.

That brother, that sister, and their future meant so much to him. If Paul had lived in the 21st century,

he would have telephoned them, written to them, visited them, met with them week by week To be

weak and to be offended are bracketed in Rom. 14:21: "thy brother is offended, or is made weak" .

And in 2 Cor. 11:29 we have the same idea: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended,

and I burn not?". The parallels imply that if the weak brother was offended, Paul himself was as it

were offended, even though he himself didn‘t stumble. He could identify with the spiritual

weakness of others to the point of feeling that he himself had committed it or was in the shoes of the

sinner- even though he himself was innocent. Paul could share with the Corinthians that he ‗burnt‘

every time a brother stumbled from the way, feeling weak with the weak (2 Cor. 11:29). He uses the

same word he uses in 1 Cor. 7:9 about burning in unfulfilled sexual lust. Time and again Paul uses

this ‗agnostic‘ word .

11:33 Paul seems to take a certain pleasure in this inversion of values. He boasts of how his greatest

moment was when he was let down a wall in a basket, in fear for his life (2 Cor. 11:30-33). "In

antiquity a Roman soldier who was first up a wall and into a conquered city would win a special

award called a wall crown. Paul says he will boast of being first down the wall"- running from the

enemy (Ben Witherington, The Paul Quest p. 124). He was the very reverse of the classical ancient

warrior. This inversion of values is just as hard and counter-cultural to live by in our world.

12:1-4- see on Gal. 1:6.

12:1-5 Paul saw visions of God which were impossible for him to explain (2 Cor. 12:1-5). Alluding

to how Moses saw the greatest visions of God of any man in the Old Testament; visions which he

could not repeat; he only repeated the words of command which he was given. He did not tell Israel

what he saw in Ex. 34.

12:2 We are real life men and women, only too aware that although yes, we are in Christ, we are

also all too human still. We still sin the sins and think the thoughts and feel the feelings of those

around us. We are only who we are, born in such a town, living in such a city, doing a job, trying to

provide for a family. In our minds eye we see the spotless lamb of God, moving around Galilee

2000 years ago, doing good, healing the sick. But He was there, and we are here now, today, in all

our weakness and worldly distraction. He was as He was, but we are as we are. Reading through his

letters, it is apparent that Paul saw himself as two people: a natural man, a Jew from Tarsus, a

Roman citizen living in the Mediterranean world... and also, a man in Christ. This is why in an

autobiographical passage in 2 Cor. 12, he says of himself: ―I knew a man in Christ‖, who had great

visions 14 years previously (at the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15), and who was subsequently

given a ―thorn in the flesh‖. ―Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory‖, he writes

(2 Cor 12:5), as if separating himself from this more spiritually exalted man who saw these visions.

Paul is surely telling us that he sees himself as two people. He makes the point clearly: ―I will not be

a fool... I am become a fool‖ (:6,11). He was the greatest apostle; although he was nothing (:11).

This language comes to a crisis in 12:10: ―When I [i.e. the natural Paul] am weak, then am I [the

spiritual Paul] strong‖.

The Corinthians were mainly Gentiles, but Paul speaks of them as ―When ye were Gentiles…‖ (2

Cor. 12:2 RV). They had a new racial identity in Christ, and yet, he also reminded them at times that

374

they were Gentiles. We too cannot obliterate who we are or where we came from. But superimposed

upon this must be the realisation than now, we are in Christ.

Paul is in many ways a working model of how we should be aware of the two people within us. In

writing to Corinth, he was highly sensitive to the danger of sinning by justifying himself as he

needed to. To overcome this problem, he speaks (through the Spirit) as if he is two quite different

people; the fleshly man, and the spiritual man. 2 Cor.11 is full of statements concerning himself,

which he makes "as a fool‖. His frequent usage of this word "fool" points us back to the Proverbs,

where a "fool" is the man of the flesh. Ecc. 10:2 says that a fool has a 'left handed' mind, which in

Jewish thinking was a reference to the "man of the flesh" of the N.T. There are a number of

apparent contradictions between passages in 2 Cor. 11,12 which are explicable once it is appreciated

that Paul is speaking firstly "in the flesh", and then concerning his spiritual man. Thus he insists that

he is not a fool (11:16; 12:6), whilst saying that he is a fool (12:11). He says he will not boast about

himself, but then he does just that. He claims to be among the greatest apostles, and in the same

breath says he is nothing (12:11). His boasting was "not after the Lord", i.e. the man Christ Jesus

within Him was not speaking, but the fool, the man of the flesh, was speaking (11:17). The supreme

example of this separation of flesh and spirit in Paul's thinking is shown by 12:2: "I knew a man in

Christ (who heard great revelations)... of such an one will I glory, but of myself will I not glory".

But 12:7 clearly defines this "man" as Paul: " lest I should be exalted... through the abundance of the

revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh". The "man in Christ" of whom Paul spoke

was his own spiritual man, who was "in Christ". It is interesting that here Paul defines "myself" as

his natural man, whereas in Rom. 7:25 he speaks of "myself" as his spiritual man. The point is made

that at different times we identify ourselves either with the man of the flesh, or with the spiritual

man within us. In 2 Cor. 11,12, Paul consciously chose to identify himself with the natural man, in

order to boast to the Corinthians. It is worth noting that ―fourteen years ago" takes us back to the

Council at Jerusalem. The revelations given to Paul then were probably confirmation that the

Gospel should indeed be preached to the Gentiles. This was the "third Heaven" dispensation. The

wonder that Paul would be used to spread the Gospel world-wide so mentally exalted Paul that he

needed a thorn in the flesh to bring Him down to earth. Yet, for the most part, we seem to shrug our

shoulders at the wonder of our preaching commission.

12:5- see on 1 Cor. 8:9.

12:7

Paul's Thorn In The Flesh

There is fair evidence that Paul did suffer from a physical ailment in order to keep him humble. The

wonder is that he only asked three times for it to be removed. He knew it was for his spiritual good,

and he believed this. The two possibilities which seem most convincing are poor eyesight and

(perhaps related) malaria.

Poor Eyesight

Gal. 4:10-13 speaks of an 'infirmity in the flesh' which would have led many to despise Paul's

preaching; and yet the Galatians overlooked this when they first heard Paul's preaching. Speaking of

the same period of time, Paul reminisces how they would have been willing to pluck out their own

eyes and give them to him (Gal. 4:15). This would seem to make a fairly firm connection between

the " thorn in the flesh" of 2 Cor. 12:7 and the " infirmity in the flesh" of poor eyesight. Thus he

concludes the Galatian letter with a reference to the large letter he had written with his own hand

(Gal. 6:11); not " large" in the sense of long, but perhaps referring to his physically large and

unimpressive handwriting. Paul " earnestly beholding the council" employs a Greek medical term

for squinting as a result of poor eyesight (Acts 23:1).

Malaria

375

The description of Paul being with the Corinthians in " weakness and...trembling" (1 Cor. 2:3) uses

a specific medical term describing the malaria shakes. This would explain why he was " in peril of

waters" (Gk. rivers; 2 Cor. 11:26)- the breeding grounds of mosquitoes. Poor eyesight could be

associated with malaria; although it us difficult to understand the malaria just beginning in mid-life

as suddenly as the 'thorn in the flesh' passage seems to suggest. Paul may well have had malaria, as

any such traveller was likely to- quite in addition to any physical 'thorn in the flesh'.

A Spiritual Struggle

However, there are reasons to think that whilst Paul may have had a physical ailment, the " thorn in

the flesh" may have referred to a a spiritual affliction. One would expect to read about a thorn in the

body if Paul was only speaking of a physical weakness. But in Paul's thinking, " the flesh" so

evidently refers to the more abstract things of human nature. The context of the " thorn in the flesh"

passage would suggest that it was a spiritual weakness. Paul says that he will not boast of himself, "

except in my infirmities" (2 Cor. 12:5). One of his " infirmities" was therefore his " thorn in the

flesh" . He is saying that he will not boast of his physical sufferings (which might include his weak

eyesight) and achievements, rather he will exult in the fact that he, a man riddled with spiritual

infirmity, especially one particular thorn in the flesh, had been used by God, and God's grace was

sufficient to overcome all his spiritual weakness. Now this would fit in with the quintessence of

Paul's belief: that by grace alone, not human achievement, God works through human weakness to

bring about His purpose. Paul isn't adding to his list of physical glorying by saying 'And you know,

on top of all this, I've had to struggle all my life with physical weakness'. This would only be

continuing his boasting of 2 Cor. 11. But now he changes, and says that he wants to glory in his

spiritual weakness, and how God has worked with him despite that.

Paul asked for the thorn to be taken away; but the answer was that God's grace was sufficient. Grace

tends to be associated with forgiveness and justification, rather than with the ability to keep on

living with a physical ailment. Likewise Moses, Paul's hero and prototype, asked a similar three

times for entry to the land, and was basically given the same answer: that God's gracious

forgiveness was sufficient for him.

Women?

When Paul talks about being buffeted by a thorn in the flesh, he is in fact almost quoting passages

from the LXX of Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:13, where " thorns" which would buffet the eyes of

Israel were the Canaanite tribes (cp. Ez. 28:24); and especially, in the context, their women. If they

intermarried, those women and what they brought with them would be made by God as thorns in

Israel's flesh. The implication could be that Paul had not driven out his Canaanites earlier, and

therefore God gave them to Him as a thorn in the flesh, just as He had done to Israel earlier. There is

fair reason to think that Paul had been married; he could not have been a member of the Sannhedrin

and thus had the power to vote for the murder of the early martyrs unless he had been married and

had children (Acts 26:10). His comment that he wished all men to be in his marital position (1 Cor.

7:8) has another slant in this case: he wished them to have had the marriage experience, but be in

the single state. As a leading Pharisee, his wife would have been from an appropriate background. "

...for whom I have suffered the loss of all things" would then have been written with a sideways

glance back at his wife, children he never saw... all that might have been. In gripping

autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of

law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this "

wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom. 7:8). " Concupiscence" is a conveniently

archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek epithumia is invariably

used in a sexual context.

As an ardent Pharisee, with all the charisma of the unashamed extremist and evidently rising leader,

it is almost certain that the inevitable interplay of sexuality and spirituality, of flesh and spirit,

376

would have played itself out. And after conversion, the inevitable attraction of the committed

missionary would have been evident; not least in the charismatic preaching of a new and ultimately

true religion which was largely comprised of young / middle aged females (according to

contemporary historians). No wonder Paul's slanderers made him out to be immoral; it was the

easiest slur to cast. At Thessalonika he was even accused of preaching solely in order to get the

praise and financial support of women (so 1 Thess. 2:3-12 implies). And as a man, with the

commandments of God producing in him all manner of concupiscence, he would not have lightly

shrugged off all these temptations. If this " thorn in the flesh" became particularly strong at a certain

time, this could be seen as reference to the beginning of some illicit relationship.

And yet it cannot be overlooked that as outlined above, there does seem to be an evident link

between the thorn in the flesh and literal blindness (Gal. 4:10-13 = 2 Cor. 12:7). The explanation

may be that because of Paul's wandering eyes and mind, his sight was severely impaired. He likens

his ailment to a man plucking out his eyes with his own hands (Gal. 4:15), using language

unmistakably recalling the Lord's command to pluck out, with ones' own hands, the eyes that

offend, that we might enter the Kingdom. The command of Mt. 5:28,29 is in the very context of

lustful thinking and looking. In His desire to save us, God has His way. Paul saw that his weakness

for women would have cost him the Kingdom, and that therefore the Lord had plucked out his eyes.

He had been given a thorn in his flesh spiritually; and so the Lord had given him a thorn in the flesh

physically, that he might conquer that spiritual weakness. The other reference to plucking out the

offending eye is in Mt. 18:9, in a context regarding the paramount need not to offend the little ones.

Could it be that Paul's limitation was to protect some of his converts from stumbling? And so with

us, the offending eye or limb must be plucked out or cut off; and if we will not do it, the Lord will:

either now, by grace, or in the final destruction of condemnation. We either fall on the stone of the

Lord and are broken now, or that stone will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. We either chose

the baptism of fire now, or we will be consumed anyway by the fire of judgment. The logic of

devotion, self-control and self-sacrifice is powerfully appealing.

Implications

God gave Paul his thorn in the flesh. Whilst God tempts no man- for temptation is a process internal

to human nature- He may still have a hand in controlling the situations which lead to temptation.

Hence the Lord bid us pray that the Father lead us not into temptation. Each of us has his own

specific human weaknesses. When the apostle wrote of shedding the sin which doth so easily beset

us (Heb. 12:1), he may have been suggesting that we each have our own specific weakness to

overcome. This is certainly a comfort to us in our spiritual struggles. We aren't alone in them. They

were given to us. We aren't alone with our nature. The purpose and plan of God for us is articulated

even through the darkest nooks of our very essential being. Understanding this should make us the

more patient with our brethren, whose evident areas of weakness are not ours.

The Messenger of Satan Comments

1. The work of this messenger of Satan resulted in Paul developing the spiritual characteristic of

humility. The Satan stopped Paul from being proud. Pride is produced by the Devil – 1 Timothy

3:6,7. So we have the situation where Satan stops the work of Satan. Again, this does not make

sense under the traditional interpretation of Satan. Mark 7:20–23 says that pride is a result of our

evil heart. Thus the trial brought on Paul by a person acting as a Satan to him stopped his evil

desires – another use of the word ―Satan‖ – from leading him into the sin of pride.

2. We have seen in chapter 2 that ―Satan‖ can be used to describe a man (e.g. Mt. 16:23) and that

the Greek word for messenger / angel can also apply to men (e.g. Mt.11:10; Lk. 7:24; James 2:25).

377

―Satan‖ may also refer to the adversarial Jewish system, and thus the messenger of Satan is most

likely a man acting on behalf of the Jews.

3. The passage can be translated ―a messenger, an adversary...‖.

4. Everywhere in Paul‘s writings, as well as in Revelation, ‗Satan‘ always has the definite article –

apart from here. Likewise, this is the only time Paul uses the form Satan rather than his usual

satanas. One reason for that could be that Paul is alluding to or quoting from known Jewish

literature or ideas which mentioned a ―messenger of Satan‖. Another possibility is that he refers

here to an Angel–Satan – for the Greek word translated ―messenger‖ is also that for Angel. In this

case, he saw himself as Job, suffering affliction from an Angel–adversary, in order to bring about

his spiritual perfection. I have noted the similarities between Job and Paul elsewhere (1)

.

Suggested Explanations

1. ―The messenger of Satan‖ is probably the same as the ministers of Satan referred to in 2

Corinthians 11:13–15, which we have interpreted as the Judaizers in the early church who were

discrediting Paul and seeking to undermine Christianity. The buffeting done by this ―messenger of

Satan‖ is defined in v. 10: ―Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in

persecutions...‖ (i.e. In my thorn in the flesh which God will not take away). Note the parallel

between the thorn and those things it caused. The reproaches refer to the Jewish ministers of Satan

saying things like, ―his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible‖ (2 Cor. 10:10), as

previously explained. The necessities and persecutions quite clearly refer to the constant waves of

persecutions he received by the Jews which the book of Acts describe. This would fit the language

of ―buffeting‖ – implying physical discomfort that he experienced periodically. The infirmities

would refer to the ill health which his persecutions by the Jews no doubt resulted in – being beaten

until he appeared dead (Acts 14:19) must have done permanent damage, as would receiving ―forty

stripes save one‖ five times and thrice being ―beaten with rods‖ because of the Jews (2 Cor. 11:24–

25). Thus the passage probably refers to an organized program of persecution of Paul by the Jews

which began after the vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1–4, from which time he dates his experience of

the thorn in the flesh. It was from this time that Paul‘s zealous preaching to the Gentiles no doubt

stimulated the Jews to more violent opposition to him. Their complaint against him was often that

he was adulterating the Jewish religion by allowing Gentiles the chance of salvation by what he

preached.

2. There is the implication that one particular ―messenger‖ of the Jewish Satan organized the

persecution of Paul – Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14–15; 1 Tim. 1:20). The link between the messenger of

Satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7 and those of 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 indicates that this person was a

member of the ecclesia also. Whilst the prophecy about ―the man of sin‖ in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 has

clear reference to the Papacy, a primary application of it may well be to this individual being in the

temple (i.e. To church – 1 Tim. 3:15) of God, ―whose coming is after the working of (the Jewish)

Satan‖ (2 Thess. 2:9). This person could do miracles – same as v. 9 – and the Jewish Christians in

the early church who brought the ideas of Judaism into the church could also do them (Heb. 6:4–6).

These Jews thus crucified Christ a second time (Heb. 6:6) – the Jews having done it once already.

This man of sin is ―the son of perdition‖ (2 Thess. 2:3), a phrase used to describe Judas (Jn. 17:12).

This suggests an allusion back to Judas, and indicates that the man of sin might also be a Jew, who

was within the ecclesia, as Judas was, but who betrayed Christ because he wanted the aims of

Judaism to be fulfilled rather than those of Christ. The ―day of Christ‖ referred to in 2 Thessalonians

2:2–3, before which time the man of sin must be developed, was primarily the destruction of

Jerusalem in A.D. 70 – which again indicates a primary Jewish fulfilment of the ―man of sin‖.

378

Notice that organized Jewish opposition to Paul‘s preaching was very intense at Thessalonica – Acts

17:5–13.

3. ―A thorn in the flesh‖. The Greek word for ―thorn‖ can mean a ―stake‖ – as was used for

crucifying. This was to buffet Paul, as Christ was buffeted at the crucifixion (Mt. 26:67). Like

Christ in His last hours, Paul prayed for the buffeting of Satan to be removed (2 Cor. 12:8 cp. Lk.

22:42). Paul ―besought the Lord thrice‖ for this and so did Jesus in the Garden (Mt. 26:39, 42, 44).

Also like Christ, Paul‘s prayer for release was not granted, ultimately for his spiritual good. Thus it

is implied that because of Paul‘s sufferings at the hands of the Jewish Satan throughout his life, his

whole life was ―crucified with Christ‖ in that he experienced constantly the sufferings Christ had in

His last few hours. This is exactly what we see in Acts 26:18.

4. There are several other references to the idea of a ―thorn in the flesh‖ in the Old Testament.

Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3; and Ezekiel 28:24, all use this figure of speech to

describe the nations surrounding Israel who were eventually the reason for their rejection and their

failure to fully inherit the kingdom – Israel failed to destroy them during their initial conquest of the

land as they were commanded. These nations are the Arab nations, and the Arabs are figurative of

apostate Israel who still trusted in the. Thus it is understandable that Paul should use this figure of a

thorn in the flesh to describe the apostate Jews who were persecuting him. The figure of the thorns

in the flesh is always used in the Old Testament in the context of something that hinders the chances

of God‘s people of entering the kingdom. Thus this thorn of Jewish opposition to Paul was a big

temptation to keep Paul out of the Kingdom. Paul implies that for him to stop making the effort to

preach was an especial temptation that would keep him from the Kingdom (1 Cor. 9:16; Eph. 6:20;

Col. 4:4; Acts 18:9), therefore at the end of his life he could thankfully say that he had finished his

ministry of preaching (Acts 20:24; 2 Tim. 4:7). He was tempted not to preach because of the Jewish

opposition – the Jewish thorn in the flesh. So the Old Testament figure of a thorn in the flesh

tempting a man not to be in the kingdom was being used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:7.

5. Joshua 23:13 describes the nations as ―thorns‖ to Israel – ―nails in your heel‖ in the Septuagint

version. This is alluding back to Genesis 3:15, where the seed of the serpent was to bruise the seed

of the woman in the heel. Thus the ―thorns in the flesh‖ are linked with the seed of the serpent.

Romans 16:17–20 describes the Judaizers as a Satan who would be shortly bruised under the feet of

the Christians, again using the language of Genesis 3:15. Therefore it is fitting for Paul to call the

―messenger‖ of the Jewish Satan a ―thorn in the flesh‖.

Note (1) See my Bible Lives Section 3-3-8.

12:8- see on Mt. 26:39.

12:9 Paul earnestly asked three times for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed (2 Cor. 12:9). The

wonder is that he only asked three times. He knew it was for his spiritual good, and he believed this.

Moses asked at least twice (maybe three times?) for him to be allowed to enter the land (Dt. 3:25;

Ps. 90); but the answer was basically the same as to Paul: "My grace is sufficient for thee". The fact

Moses had been forgiven and was at one with his God was so great that his physical entering the

land was irrelevant. And for Paul likewise, temporal blessings in this life are nothing compared to

the grace of forgiveness which we have received (Ex. 34:9).

12:10 2 Cor. 12:10 states that it is in our very weakness, the weakness of the man made to realize

the weight of his own mediocrity and failure to achieve as described above, that the power of God

breaks forth.

379

Reading through his letters, it is apparent that Paul saw himself as two people: a natural man, a Jew

from Tarsus, a Roman citizen living in the Mediterranean world... and also, a man in Christ. He

speaks of how ―I bruise myself‖, as if the one Paul was boxing against the other Paul (1 Cor. 9:27

RVmg.). This is why in an autobiographical passage in 2 Cor. 12, he says of himself: ―I knew a man

in Christ‖, who had great visions 14 years previously (at the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15), and

who was subsequently given a ―thorn in the flesh‖. ―Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will

not glory‖, he writes (2 Cor. 12:5), as if separating himself from this more spiritually exalted man

who saw these visions. Paul is surely telling us that he sees himself as two people. He makes the

point clearly: ―I will not be a fool... I am become a fool‖ (:6,11). He was the greatest apostle;

although he was nothing (:11). This language comes to a crisis in 12:10: ―When I [i.e. the natural

Paul] am weak, then am I [the spiritual Paul] strong‖.

12:11- see on 2 Cor. 11:5.

12:15- see on Lk. 15:24; Rom. 9:3.

Paul had enough self-knowledge to say that his love for Corinth was growing more and more

(although this was expressed in an ever-increasing concern for their doctrinal soundness); he told

the Thessalonians that his love for them was increasing and abounding (2 Cor. 12:15; 1 Thess.

3:12). And Paul could therefore exhort the Philippians and Thessalonians to also increase and

abound in their love for each other, after Paul's example (Phil. 1:9; 1 Thess. 3:12). Paul's love for his

brethren grew and grew, even though they didn't notice this. The 'you don't know just how much I

love you' syndrome is surely one of the cruellest in human experience. A growth in true love, true

concern, isn't always apparent to our brethren. But if our growth is after Paul's pattern (and surely it

can be on no other pattern); then this will be our experience too.

12:16 Throughout Corinthians Paul is quoting phrases from their allegations and questions, but it is

not always exactly apparent. Consider 2 Cor. 12:16. Perhaps using quotation marks we could

translate: "Nevertheless, "being crafty", I "caught you with guile"". The New Testament so often

seems to mix interpretation with Old Testament quotation; here especially we need to imagine the

use of quotation marks.

13:1 The principles of Mt. 18:16,17 concerning dealing with personal offences are applied by Paul

to dealing with moral and doctrinal problems at Corinth (= 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Cor. 5:4,5,9; 6:1-6).

13:2- see on 1 Cor. 15:10.

13:4 Because we are in Christ, His death was not an isolated historical event. We also are weak with

Him (2 Cor. 13:4 RV), such is the identity between us and Him. When Paul reflected upon his own

sickness [which the RVmg. calls his stake / cross in the flesh], he could say in all sober truth that he

gloried in his weakness, because his identity with the weakness of Christ crucified also thereby

identified him with the strength and power of the risen Lord (2 Cor. 11:9).

13:5- see on 2 Tim. 4:6.

If we cannot examine ourselves and know that Christ is really in us, then we are reprobate; we

"have failed" (2 Cor. 13:5 G.N.B.). Self-examination is therefore one of those barriers across our

path in life which makes us turn to the Kingdom or to the flesh. If we can't examine ourselves and

see that Christ is in us and that we have therefore that great salvation in Him; we've failed. I

wouldn't be so bold as to throw down this challenge to any of us in exhortation. But Paul does. It's a

powerful, even terrible, logic.

The NT speaks of "the faith in Christ" or "the doctrine of Christ". "The faith", the body of doctrine

comprising the Gospel, is all epitomized in a real person. To know we are "in the faith" is to know

that Christ is in us (2 Cor. 13:5). "The faith", the set of doctrines we must continue believing, is

paralleled with the man Christ Jesus. Jesus was "the word made flesh", and "the word" very often

refers to the word of the Gospel rather than the whole Bible. The life which the corpus of doctrine

380

brings forth is essentially the life and living of the man Christ Jesus. He was and is the supreme and

living example of the living out of all the doctrines. It has been well said by Frank Birch that ―Faith

is not simply the intellectual acceptance of a body of doctrine. Faith is ultimately shown in a person,

the man, Christ Jesus".

There is a question which cuts right to the bone of each of us; right through the debates and

semantics which increasingly shroud our Christian lives. 'Can we be completely certain that should

Christ return now, we will be in the Kingdom?'. Posing this question provokes widely different

response- from 'Of course not! How presumptuous!', to that of the present writer: 'By God's grace-

yes!'. We can't say ultimately because we may fall away in the future- but we should be able to

assess the spiritual state we are in at this present point in time. If we cannot do this, then our

salvation is very much at risk; as Paul bluntly told Corinth: ―Examine yourselves, whether ye be in

the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you,

except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5). They sought proof that Christ was in Paul (2 Cor. 13:3), yet

he challenges them to know whether Christ is in them personally. The implication was that if they

could not judge that, they were in no position to ask whether Christ was in Paul- or any other. This

is vintage Paul; the logic is irresistible.

13:6- see on Mt. 3:11.

13:7 We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless it will be forced upon us at the

judgment. And thus Paul can say that ―we be as reprobates‖ (2 Cor. 13:7), using a Greek word

elsewhere translated ―castaway‖, ―rejected‖, in the context of being rejected at the judgment seat (1

Cor. 9:27; Heb. 6:8). Yet he says in the preceding verse that he is most definitely not reprobate (2

Cor. 13:6). Here we have the paradox: knowing that we are not and by grace will not be rejected,

and yet feeling and reasoning as if we are.

The above analysis reveals that David's requests in areas apart from forgiveness and salvation

largely centred around his desire for God to grant spiritual help to others. There are many examples

of praying for God to help others spiritually: 2 Kings 19:4; 2 Chron. 30:18; Job 42:10; Rom. 10:1; 2

Cor. 13:7; Phil. 1:9,19; Col. 1:9; 1 Thess. 3:10; 2 Thess. 1:11; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Jn. 5:16. Surely this

was also the spirit behind Abraham's intercession for Lot to be saved out of Sodom. Granted a

certain modicum of spirituality in those being prayed for, Noah, Daniel and Job all delivered the

souls of others by their prayerful righteousness (Ez. 14:14). When we pray for others, God sees it as

them praying (if they have a modicum of spirituality), in the same way as when the Lord Jesus prays

for us, He interprets what He knows to be our spirit to God, recognizing that we don't know how to

pray in words as we should (Jer. 11:14). The Lord Jesus prayed for us concerning spiritual issues

which at the time we did not understand (Lk. 22:32; Jn. 17:9,15,20), and Paul especially seems to

have grasped this example.

13:10 Paul seems to have recognized the hard exterior which he had: "I write these things being

absent, lest being present I should use sharpness" (2 Cor. 13:10).

13:11- see on 1 Cor. 11:18.

There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult

sayings. "Be you therefore perfect" has always been hard to understand (Mt. 5:48). Paul's comment

is: "Be perfected" (2 Cor. 13:11). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect

you' is the message.

13:12- see on Rom. 16:16.

13:14 There is a fellowship of the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14) in the sense that all who live the same

spiritually-centred life will thereby be bound together in a powerful and inevitable fellowship.

When, for example, two Christian mothers strike up conversation about the difficulty of raising

children in this present evil world, when two brethren talk about the difficulties of living as Christ

381

would in today‘s business world… there is, right there, in those almost casual conversations, the

fellowship of the spirit. It isn‘t just a social connection because we belong to the same

denomination.

382

GALATIANS

1:1 Consider how in Galatians Paul uses so many negatives, as if his passion and almost rage at the

false teachers is coming out: ―an apostle not from men… the gospel preached by me is not man‘s

gospel… nor was I taught it… I did not confer with flesh and blood, I did not go up to Jerusalem…

I do not lie… Titus was not compelled… to false brethren we did not yield… those ‗of repute‘

added nothing‖ (Gal. 1:1,11,12,16,20; 2:3,4,6). The way he says ―Ye have known God, or rather,

are known of God‖ (Gal. 4:9) seems to indicate [through the ―or rather…‖] a very human and

passionate touch in his writing, as if he was thinking out loud as he wrote.

1:4 The purpose of the cross was so that we might be separated out from this present evil world

(Gal. 1:4). To remain in the world, to stay in the crowd that faced the cross rather than walk through

the no man's land between, this is a denial of the Lord's death for us. See on Gal. 6:14.

Paul had his inspired mind on this phrase of the Lord‘s prayer when he commented that the Lord

Jesus died in order ―that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of

God‖ (Gal. 1:4; 2 Thess. 3:3). Clearly enough, Paul didn‘t understand ―the evil‖ to be a personal

Satan, but rather the ―evil‖ of this world and those who seek to persecute believers.

Much of Paul‘s writing is understandable on various levels. In some places he makes allusions to

contemporary Jewish writings and ideas – with which he was obviously very familiar given his

background – in order to correct or deconstruct them. This is especially true with reference to

Jewish ideas about Satan and supposedly sinful Angels ruling over this present world. As more and

more Jewish writings of the time become more widely available, it becomes increasingly apparent

that this is a major feature of Paul‘s writing. The Jewish writings all held to the teaching of the two

ages, whereby this current age was supposed to be under the control of Satan and his angels, who

would be destroyed in the future age, when Messiah would reign and Paradise would be restored on

earth (see 1 Enoch 16.1; 18.16; 21.6; Jubilees 1.29; T. Moses 1.18; 12.4). Paul frequently uses terms

used in the Jewish writings concerning the Kingdom age, the eschatological age, and applies them

to the experience of Christian believers right now. When Heb. 2:14 states that Christ killed the

Devil in His death on the cross, this is effectively saying that the future age has come. For the Jews

expected the Devil to be destroyed only at the changeover to the future Kingdom age. In 4 Ezra,

―This age‖ (4.27; 6.9; 7.12), also known as the ―corrupt age‖ (4.11) stands in contrast to the ―future

age‖ (6.9; 8.1), the ―greater age‖, the ―immortal time‖ (7.119), the future time (8.52). 4 Enoch even

claims that the changeover from this age to the future age occurs at the time of the final judgment,

following the death of the Messiah and seven days of silence (7.29–44, 113). So we can see why

Paul would plug in to these ideas. He taught that Christ died ―in order to rescue us from this present

evil age‖ (Gal. 1:4; Rom 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22). Therefore if the old age has finished, that means Satan

is no longer controlling things as the Jews believed. For they believed that Satan‘s spirits ―will

corrupt until the day of the great conclusion, until the great age is consummated, until everything is

concluded (upon) the Watchers and the wicked ones‖ (1 Enoch 16:1, cf. 72:1). And Paul was

pronouncing that the great age had been consummated in Christ, that the first century believers were

those upon whom the end of the aion had come (1 Cor. 10:11).

1:6 Paul describes himself as having been called by God, by grace; and in this context he comments

how he called the Galatians to the grace of Christ (Gal. 1:6 cp. 15). His response to his calling of

grace was to go out and preach, thereby calling men to that same grace, replicating in his preaching

what God had done for him.

True preaching reflects a certain artless selflessness. Likewise Paul writes of his preaching to the

Galatians in the third person: ―him [Paul] that called you into the grace of Christ‖ (Gal. 1:6). And

likewise he talks about himself while at the Jerusalem conference, where he was given so clearly the

ministry of converting the Gentiles, as if he hardly identifies himself with himself: ―I knew a man in

Christ above fourteen years ago... I knew such a man... of such an one will I glory, yet of myself I

383

will not glory‖ (2 Cor. 12:1-4- the context makes it clear that Paul refers to himself, seeing that he

was the one given the thorn in the flesh as a result of the revelations given to this ―man‖). In 1

Thess. 1:5 Paul could have written: ‗We came with the Gospel‘, but instead he uses the more

awkward construction: ‗Our Gospel came…‘. He, Paul, was subsumed beneath the essence of his

life work- the preaching of the Gospel.

1:8- see on Ez. 14:9.

1:10 Although Paul made himself all things to all men, he didn‘t just seek to please men (Gal. 1:10;

1 Thess. 2:4). He sought their salvation and approached them in appropriate terms, but he didn‘t just

seek to please them from a human viewpoint. He didn‘t cheapen the Gospel.

1:10

Galatians: An Encomium Cultured, educated people in the first century presented themselves to others by means of an

'encomium'. This was a document or major speech which included five sections, clearly defined in

the various manuals of rhetoric which survive, and which surely Paul would have been taught. The

purpose of the encomium was to demonstrate how the person was an upright member of the

community and worthy of honour within it. Students of the letter to the Galatians have detected

these five sections of the encomium followed in an almost classic manner by Paul in Galatians 1:10-

2:21:

1. Opening (prooimion) 1:10-12: Paul's Gospel

2. Lifestyle (anastrophe) 1:13-17: Paul as persecutor of the church and preacher of the Gospel. Gal.

1:13 uses the very word anastrophe ("way of life")

3. Achievements (praxeis) or "deeds of the body" 1:18-2:10- Paul's work in Jerusalem, Syria and

again in Jerusalem

4. Comparison with others (synkrisis) 2:11-21- Paul and Peter; Paul and the Jews

5. Conclusion (epilogos)- 2:21 Paul and grace.

The encomium was essentially self-praise and self-justification within society. Paul almost mocks

the encomium, by using its elements to show how radically different are the standards of thinking

and behaviour for the Christian. In Gal. 1:15 Paul speaks of his birth (genesis), which in the usual

encomiums would've been a reference to his family of origin, which as we've shown was all

important in a collectivist society. Paul never speaks of his parents, as would've been normal in an

encomium- and seeing he was born as a free man, he could've made an impressive point at this stage

had he wished. But the birth he speaks of is that which came from God, who gave Paul birth by

grace. His place in God's invisible household was all important, rather than what family he belonged

to naturally. An encomium would typically have a reference to a man's education- and Paul could've

made an impressive case for himself here. But rather he speaks of how God Himself revealed Christ

to him, and how his spiritual education was not through interaction with any other men of standing

in the Christian community, but rather in his three years alone in Arabia (Gal. 1:18). It has been

suggested that Paul actually coined a new Greek term in 1 Thess. 4:9, when he spoke of how he had

been taught-by-God (theodidaktos). To claim an education 'not by flesh and blood' (Gal. 1:16) was

foolishness to 1st century society. In the description of his "deeds", Paul could've made a fair case

both as a Jew and as a Christian. But instead he spends Gal. 2:1-10 speaking of how he had laboured

so hard to avoid division in the church of Christ, to teach grace, avoid legalistic obedience to the

norms of Jewish society, and to help the poor. These were the works he counted as significant. It

was usual in an encomium to speak of your courage (andreia) and fortitude. Paul uses the word

andreia, again in conscious imitation of an encomium, but he relates it to how he courageously

refused to "yield submission even for a moment" to the pressures to conform to Jewish societal

expectations (Gal. 2:5). When it comes to the synkrisis, the comparison with others, he chooses to

compare himself with Peter, who caved in to the pressures from the Jews, agreeing to act smart

384

before men rather than God, whereas Paul says he withstood this and insisted upon a life of radical

grace which paid no attention to what others thought of his appearances.

1:10 Paul sees one application of serving mammon as acting in a hypocritical way in order to please

some in the ecclesia (Mt. 6:24 = Gal. 1:10).

1:12 - see on Gal. 1:1.

1:14- see on Mt. 15:2.

Paul could have been such a high flyer; he profited (materially, the Greek could imply) in the Jews'

religion above any one else (Gal. 1:14). But he resigned it all. He wrote some majestic words which

ought to become the goal of every one of us: "But what things were gain to me [materially?], those I

counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the

knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count

them but dung, that I way win Christ" (Phil. 3:7,8).

1:15- see on Acts 18:18.

Paul seems to have admired the humility John the Baptist manifested in his preaching. He knew he

had been chosen from the womb for his mission, as John had been (Gal. 1:15 = Lk. 1:15).

Paul felt he had been ―separated unto the [preaching of the] gospel of God‖ (Gal. 1:15); and he uses

a word which the LXX uses for the separation of part of a sacrifice to be consumed (Ex. 29:24,26).

The Greek word for "witness" is martus, from whence 'martyr'. To witness to Christ is to live the

life of the martyr; to preach Him is to live out His cross in daily life.

The Lord‘s servant being called from the womb (Is. 49:1) was applied by Paul to himself (Gal.

1:15)- see on Rom. 8:31.

In Gal. 1:15,16, Paul speaks as if his calling to preach the Gospel and his conversion co-incided. He

clearly understood that he had been called so as to spread the word to others. Paul uses the word

kaleo to describe both our call to the Gospel, and the call to preach that Gospel (Gal. 1:15 cp. Rom.

8:30; 1 Cor. 1:9; 7:15; Gal. 1:6; 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:9). He doesn‘t separate his call from that of ours; he

speaks of how God called ―us‖ (Rom. 9:24; 1 Thess. 4:7). We may not all be able to live the life of

itinerant preaching and spreading the word geographically which Paul did. And yet clearly enough

Paul sets himself up as our pattern in the context of his attitude to preaching. Our lamps were lit, in

the Lord‘s figure, so as to give light to others. We are mirrors, reflecting to others the glory of God

as far as we ourselves behold it in the face of Jesus Christ.

Choice from birth, calling, ministry to the Gentiles = The servant known from birth (Is. 49:1,5).

This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to

Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.

Our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy

He saved us, by... renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Tit.3:5). Thus in Paul's case "it pleased (lit. 'willed')

God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace" (Gal.1:15) - not

Paul's works. Thus our obedience to the truth was "through (on account of) the Spirit" (1 Pet.1:22).

Against this must be balanced Rom.10:17: "Faith cometh by hearing... the word of God". God's

Spirit was involved in bringing about our calling, and is also present in the word by which we are

called.

Chronology of Paul’s Life Standard Chronology Of Paul's Life John Robinson's Chronology Of Paul's Life (2)

AD 35 Paul‘s conversion

36-38 In Arabia (1)

38-43 Preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem

AD33 Conversion

35 First visit to Jerusalem

46 Second [famine-relief] visit to Jerusalem

385

44-46 Working in Antioch and Syria

46-48 First missionary journey

49-50 Jerusalem Conference

50-52 Second missionary journey

53-57 Third missionary journey

57-59 Arrest- Jerusalem-Caesarea

59-62 To Rome; first imprisonment

63-66 Release; travels in Asia, Greece, Spain

64-68 Nero‘s persecution of the Christians

67 Arrest, imprisoned in a dungeon in Rome

68 Final trial; executed.

47-48 First missionary journey

48 Council of Jerusalem

49-51 Second missionary journey

52-57 Third missionary journey

57 Arrival in Jerusalem

57-59 Imprisonment in Caesarea

60-62 Imprisonment in Rome

Notes (1) "Arabia" is from the word 'Arabah', and occurs in the LXX in Dt. 2:8; 3:17; 4:49 to mean simply

the wilderness. Since Paul went there from Damascus, it has been suggested that he mixed with the

Damascene Essene group. There are extensive parallels between the Qumran texts and the letter to

the Hebrews, which could lend support to this suggestion- as if Paul wrote to an audience he knew.

(2) J.A.T. Robinson, Redating The New Testament (London: SCM, 1976) pp. 52,53.

1:16- see on Acts 9:20.

Saul of Tarsus must‘ve seemed the most unlikely of men to convert to Christ. But he later refers to

how God chose ―to reveal his son in me‖ (Gal. 1:16). The Greek word apokalupto means literally

‗to take the cover off‘. The implication is that Christ is passively within each person, but has to be

revealed in them, through response to the Gospel. The cover can be taken off every single man or

women with whom we come into contact! The Galatians passage could equally mean that Paul was

called as an apostle to ‗take the cover off‘ Christ to others; and yet Paul felt his calling was to all

people on earth, to the ends of the world (Acts 13:47)- to every single person of all the Gentile

nations (Rom. 15:11; 2 Tim. 4:17).

Paul's attitude to his brethren seems to have changed markedly over the years. He begins as being

somewhat detached from them; perhaps as all new converts are initially. We see the Truth for what

it is, we realize we had to make the commitment we did, and we are happy to do our own bit in

preaching the Truth. But often a real concern and care for our brethren takes years to develop. Paul

seems to tell the Galatians that the Gospel he preached had not been given to him by men, because

in the early days after his conversion he was rather indifferent towards other Christian believers; "

(Paul) conferred not with flesh and blood" after his conversion, neither did he go to see the apostles

in Jerusalem to discuss how to preach to Israel; instead, Paul says, he pushed off to Arabia for three

years in isolation. He was unknown by face to the Judaean ecclesias, and even after his return from

Arabia, he made no special effort to meet up with the Apostles (Gal. 1). The early Paul comes over

as self-motivated, a maverick, all too ready to fall out with Barnabas, all too critical of Mark for

failing to rise up to Paul's level of fearless devotion (Acts 15:39).

God ―was pleased to reveal his son in me, that I might preach him‖ (Gal. 1:16). To preach Christ is

to reveal Him to men through ourselves- this is the purpose for which we are called, that our lamp

was lit, to reveal Christ to others through us. And thus Paul could conclude by saying that he bore in

his body [perhaps an idiom for his life, cp. the ‗broken body‘ of the Lord we remember] the

stigmata of the Lord Jesus (Gal. 6:17).

1:17- see on Acts 26:16-19; 1 Cor. 9:17.

1:20- see on Gal. 1:1.

386

2:1-10 This agreement need not be identical with the council of Acts 15. It could've occurred at the

visit of Acts 11:30.

2:2 Unity and avoiding division is vital. Paul even argues in Gal. 2:2 that all his colossal missionary

effort would have been a 'running in vain' if the ecclesia divided into exclusive Jewish and Gentile

sections. This may be hyperbole, but it is all the same a hyperbole which reflects the extent to which

Paul felt that unity amongst believers was vital.

2:3 - see on Gal. 1:1.

2:5 Paul in Gal. 2:5 speaks of how he refused to ―give place by subjection‖ to some who claimed to

be elders, even though they ―seemed to be somewhat‖ and were [in the eyes of some] ―in repute‖

(Gal. 2:6 ASV). The same Greek word translated ―subjection‖ is found in 1 Cor. 16:16; Tit. 3:1 and

1 Pet. 5:5 about submission to elders in the ecclesia. Paul‘s example shows that merely because an

elder demands subjection, this doesn‘t mean we should automatically give it- even if others do. We

should be ―subject‖ to those who are in our judgment qualified to demand our subjection (1 Cor.

16:16); and ―subjection‖ in Paul‘s writings usually refers to our subjection to the Lordship of Jesus.

Our subjection must be to Him first before any human elders.

We enter the one body of Christ by baptism into the one body of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 12:13). We

therefore have a duty to fellowship all who remain in the body (1 Cor. 10:16). Paul describes Peter

as not walking according to the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2:14) by effectively saying there were two

bodies, of Jews and Gentiles, and only fellowshipping one of these groups rather than the entire one

body. Paul put all the ecclesial politics behind him and withstood Peter "to his face". If we know

"the truth" of Christ's Gospel, we will fellowship all those in Him and in that Truth. If we don't, Paul

foresaw that ultimately "the truth of the Gospel" would be lost (Gal. 2:5). Tragically, in man-made

attempts to preserve the Gospel's Truth the rest of the body has often been disfellowshipped. But by

fellowshipping all the body, the "Truth" is kept!

Peter And The Judaizers (Gal. 2:6-11) Led Away…

The Peter who had come so so far, from the headstrong days of Galilee to the shame of the denials,

and then on to the wondrous new life of forgiveness and preaching that grace to others, leading the

early community that developed upon that basis…that Peter almost went wrong later in life. Peter

and the Judaizers makes a sad story. And as always, it was a most unlikely form of temptation that

arose and almost blew him right off course. As often, the problem arose from his own brethren

rather than from the hostile world outside. There was strong resistance in the Jewish mind to the

idea that Gentiles could be saved without keeping the Mosaic law. And more than this, there was the

feeling that any Jewish believer who advocated that they could was selling out and cheapening the

message of God to men. Paul has to write about this whole shameful episode in Gal. 2. It becomes

apparent that Peter very nearly denied the Lord that bought him once again, by placing on one side

all the evidence of salvation by pure grace, for all men whether they be Jew or Gentile, which he

had progressively built up over the past years. Paul, using Peter‘s old name, comments how Cephas

seemed to be a pillar- but wasn‘t (Gal. 2:9). Paul ―withstood him to the face, because he was to be

blamed‖ (2:11). Peter and some other Jewish believers ―dissembled‖ and along with Barnabas ―was

carried away with their dissimulation‖, with the result that they ―walked not uprightly according to

the truth of the gospel‖ (2:12-14). Paul‘s whole speech to Peter seems to be recorded in Gal. 2:15-

21. He concludes by saying that if Peter‘s toleration of justification by works rather than by Christ

was really so, then Christ was dead in vain. Paul spoke of how for him, he is crucified with Christ,

and lives only for Him, ―who loved me and gave himself for me‖. These were exactly the

sentiments which Peter held so dear, and Paul knew they would touch a chord with him.

The Denial Of Grace

387

Yet Peter very nearly walked away from it all, because he was caught up in the legalism of his

weaker brethren, and lacked the courage to stand up to the pressure of the Judaizers on him. Peter

had earlier stayed with a tanner, a man involved in a ritually unclean trade (Acts 9:43). This would

indicate that Peter was a liberal Jew, hardly a hard-liner. His caving in to the Judaist brethren was

therefore all the more an act of weakness rather than something he personally believed in. For it was

Peter, too, who had gone through the whole Cornelius experience too! And many a humble, sincere

man in Christ since has lost his fine appreciation of the Lord‘s death for him and the whole message

of grace, through similar sophistry and a desire to please 'the brethren'. In some of his very last

words, facing certain death, Peter alludes to this great failure of his- his second denial of the Lord.

He pleads with his sheep to hold on to the true grace of God, lest ―ye also, being led away (s.w. Gal.

2:13 ―carried away‖) with the error of the lawless, fall…‖ (2 Pet. 3:17). Ye also invites the

connection with Peter himself, who was led away by the error of the lawyers, the legalists- whereas

his sheep had the error of the lawless to contend with. The point surely is that to go the way of

legalism, of denying the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, is every bit as bad as going to the lawless

ways of the world. Peter was carried away with the ―dissimulation‖ of the Judaizers (Gal. 2:13), and

he uses the same word when he appeals to the brethren to lay aside ―all hypocrisies‖ (1 Pet. 2:1); he

was asking them to do what he himself had had to do. He had been a hypocrite, in living the life of

legalism within the ecclesia whilst having the knowledge of grace. We may so easily pass this off as

a mere peccadillo compared to the hypocrisy of living the life of the world 6 days / week and

coming to do one‘s religious devotions at a Christian church on a Sunday. But Peter draws a parallel

between his own hypocrisy and that of such brethren; this is how serious it is to bow to the sophistry

of legalism. It may be that an unjust disfellowship ought to be contended, and we say nothing. Or

that a sincere, spiritual brother who places his honest doubts on the table is elbowed out of being

able to make the contribution to the community he needs to. In our after the meeting conversations

and in our Sunday afternoon chats we can go along with such things, depending on the company we

are in. And it seems just part of Christian life. The important thing, it can seem, is to stay within the

community and keep separate from the world. But not so, is Peter‘s message. His ecclesial

hypocrisy was just as bad as that of the worldly believer whom Peter wrote to warn. Paul seems to

go even further and consciously link Peter‘s behaviour with his earlier denials that he had ever

known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter‘s denial of the Lord‘s grace ―before

them all‖ (Gal. 2:14), using the very same Greek phrase of Mt. 26:70, where ―before them all‖ Peter

made the same essential denial.

Unlearning

The sad thing about Peter‘s reversion to the Judaist perspective was that it was an almost studied

undoing of all the Lord had taught him in the Cornelius incident. There he had learnt that the

Lordship of Jesus, which had so deeply impressed him in his early preaching, was in fact universal-

because ―He is Lord of all‖, therefore men from all (s.w.) nations were to be accepted in Him (Acts

10:35,36). God shewed him that he was not to call any man common or unclean on account of his

race (Acts 10:28). But now he was upholding the very opposite. And he wasn‘t just passively going

along with it, although that‘s how it doubtless started, in the presence of brethren of greater bearing

and education than himself. He ―compelled‖ the Gentile believers to adopt the Jewish ways, as if

Peter was a Judaizer; and every time that word is used in Galatians it is in the context of compelling

believers to be circumcised (Gal. 2:14 cp. 2:3; 6:12). So it seems Peter actually compelled brethren

to be circumcised. And the Galatian epistle gives the answer as to why this was done; brethren chose

to be circumcised and to preach it lest they suffer persecution for the sake of the cross of Christ

(Gal. 5:11; 6:12-14). Consistently this letter points an antithesis between the cross and circumcision.

The body marks of Christ‘s cross are set off against the marks of circumcision (Gal. 6:17); and the

essence of the Christian life is said to be crucifying the flesh nature, rather than just cutting off bits

of skin (Gal. 5:24). Peter‘s capitulation to the Judaizers, Peter's revertal to circumcision, was

effectively a denial of the cross, yet once again in his life. There was something he found almost

388

offensive about the cross, an ability to sustainedly accept its message. And he turned back to

circumcision as he had earlier turned to look at John‘s weaknesses when told he must carry the

cross. And we turn to all manner of pseudo-spiritual things to excuse our similar inability to focus

upon it too.

Eventually Peter wouldn‘t eat with the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:12). But he had learnt to eat with

Gentile brethren in Acts 11:3; he had justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its

rightness, and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should not make such

distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There‘s a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak

brother or sister- what you start by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better

judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating. It can be fairly conclusively proven that

Mark‘s Gospel is in fact Peter‘s. Yet it is there in Mk. 7:19 that Mark / Peter makes the point that

the Lord Jesus had declared all foods clean. He knew the incident, recalled the words, had perhaps

preached and written them; and yet Peter acted and reasoned as if he was totally unaware of them.

Paul gently guided Peter back to the Cornelius incident, which he doubtless would have deeply

meditated upon as the inspired record of it became available. Peter had been taught that God

accepted whoever believed in Him, regardless of their race. But now Paul had to remind Peter that

truly, God ―accepteth no man‘s person‖ (Gal. 2:6). The same Greek word was a feature of the

Cornelius incident: whoever believes receives, accepts, remission of sins (Acts 10:43), and they

received, accepted, the Holy Spirit as well as the Jewish brethren (Acts 10:47). With his matchless

humility, Peter accepted Paul‘s words. His perceptive mind picked up these references (and in so

doing we have a working model of how to seek to correct our brethren, although the success of it

will depend on their sensitivity to the word which we both quote and allude to). But so easily, a

lifetime of spiritual learning could have been lost by the sophistry of legalistic brethren. It‘s a sober

lesson. And yet Peter in his pastoral letters (which were probably transcripts of his words /

addresses) makes these references back to his own failure, and on the basis of having now even

more powerfully learnt his lesson, he can appeal to his brethren. And so it should be in our

endeavours for our brethren. Paul warned him that by adopting the Judaist stance, he was building

again what had been destroyed (Gal. 2:18). And Peter with that in mind can urge the brethren to

build up the things of Christ and His ecclesia (1 Peter 2:5,7 s.w.), rather, by implication, that the

things of the world and its philosophy.

2:7 ―The gospel of the circumcision‖ being given to Peter and that of the Gentiles to Paul evidently

means ‗the duty of preaching the gospel‘ (Gal. 2:7). The Gospel is in itself the duty of preaching it.

2:8 In Gal. 2:7,8, we read that Peter was given a ministry to preach to Jews, and Paul to the

Gentiles. But in Acts 15:7 Peter says that God used him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles- and the

implication of 1 Peter is that he had made many converts in Gentile areas of Asia Minor. The

reconcilliation of these statements may be that God changed things around- Peter's ministry to the

Gentiles was handed over to Paul, and Paul's initial work amongst the Jews was not for him to

continue but for Peter. And so the Father may work with us, too. My simple point is that we are

each given our group or area of potential responsibility for preaching, and we should be workers

together with the Father and Son to achieve what they have potentially made possible for us. And

we each, in God‘s master plan, have an area of opportunity opened up to us for us to preach in, and

this area may be changed, reduced, moved or expanded according to our freewill response to God‘s

desire to use us.

2:9 James, the leader of the Jerusalem ecclesia, got Peter and John to join him in making Paul to

agree to preach only to Gentiles, whilst they would teach the Jews (Gal. 2:9 NIV). This was

contrary to what the Lord had told Paul in Acts 9:15- that he had been converted so as to preach to

both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul took no notice of the ‗agreement‘ they tried to force him into- he

always made a priority of preaching first of all in the Jewish synagogues and to the Jews, and only

secondarily to Gentiles. He did this right up to the end of the Acts record. Paul got drawn into

389

politics in the church. Although he went along with the Acts 15 decree and even agreed to propagate

it, he never mentions it in his writing or speaking, and later he writes about food regulations and the

whole question of Gentiles and the Law as if he disagreed with it. Perhaps as he matured, he saw the

need to speak out against legalism in the ecclesias rather than go along with it for the sake of peace.

We can ourselves so easily form into groups of brethren and ecclesias, papering over our differences

as happened in Acts 15, adopting a hard line (as Jerusalem ecclesia did in Gal. 2:9 over Gentile

believers), then a softer line in order to win political support (as in Acts 15), then back to a hard line

(as in Acts 21). We ought to be men and women of principle. We look back at the senior brethren of

those days arguing so strongly about whether or not it was right to break bread with Gentile

believers, ―much disputing‖ whether or not we should be circumcised… and it all seems to us such

an elemental disregard of the clear teaching of the Lord Jesus and so many clear Old Testament

implications. But there were background factors which clouded their perceptions, although they

themselves didn‘t realise this at the time. And so it can be with us, if we were to see ourselves from

outside our own historical time, place and culture, it would probably be obvious that we are

disregarding some most basic teachings of the Word which we know so well. Like them, our

blindness is because the environment we live in blinds us to simple Bible truth.

2:11 There is a direct relationship, in God's judgment, between how we treat others and what will

happen to us. This is to the extent that what we do to others, we do to ourselves. If we condemn

others, we really and truly do condemn ourselves. Thus when Peter refused to fellowship Gentiles,

Paul "withstood him to the face, because he stood condemned" (Gal. 2:11 RV). Just as Peter had

condemned himself by denying the Lord, so he had done again in refusing to fellowship the Lord's

brethren. Realizing the seriousness of all this, Paul didn't just let it go, as many of us would have

done in such an ecclesial situation. He realized a man was condemning himself; and so he risked

causing a lot of upset in order to save him from this. Many of us could take a lesson from this.

2:12 The whole nature of the agreement in Gal. 2:6-10 could be read as smacking of dirty politics-

Paul could continue to convert Gentiles and not force them to be circumcised, but James and Peter

would continue their ministry to the Jews, and Paul would get his Gentile converts to donate money

to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. It all could be read as having the ring of a 'deal' rather than an

agreement strictly guided by spiritual principles. James [not necessarily the same James who wrote

the epistle] seems to have acted very ‗politically‘. He sent his followers to pressurise Peter not to

break bread with Gentiles in Antioch (Gal. 2:12). Then there was a conference called at Jerusalem

to discuss the matter. There was ―much disputing‖, there wasn‘t the clear cut acceptance of Gentiles

which one would have expected if the words of Jesus had been taken at face value, and then James

said ‗Nobody ever came from me telling any Gentile they must be circumcised and keep the Law.

They are all welcome, just that they must respect some of the Mosaic laws about blood etc., and

keep away from fornication‘. This contradicts Paul‘s inspired teaching that the Mosaic Law was

totally finished. Gal. 2:12 records that James had sent brethren to Antioch trying to enforce the Law

upon Gentiles! And then later, the Jerusalem ecclesia boasted of how many thousand members they

had, ―and they are all zealous of the law‖. They then asked Paul to make it clear that he supported

circumcision and keeping the Law (Acts 21:19-24). In passing, we note how hurtful this must have

been, since Paul was bringing funds for their ecclesia which he had collected at the cost of

damaging his relationship with the likes of Corinth. He meekly obeyed, perhaps it was playing a

part in the politics in the church, although he had written to the Colossians and others that there was

no need for any to be circumcised nor keep the Law, indeed these things were a denial of faith in

Jesus.

2:13- see on Mt. 23:28.

Paul withstood the pressures of the ‗circumcision party‘ within the early church, and rebuked Peter

for caving in to them (Gal. 2:12,13). But then he himself caved in under pressure from the same

390

group, and obeyed their suggestion that he show himself to be not opposed to the keeping of the

Mosaic Law by paying the expenses for the sacrifices of four brethren.

2:14 We must walk "uprightly (Gk. 'with straight feet', like the cherubim) according to the true

Gospel" (Gal. 2:14 Gk.). Correct walk / behaviour is therefore related to the fact we have believed

the true Gospel, i.e. we hold the right doctrines rather than the wrong ones. In this lies the

importance of doctrine. This is why Is. 29:13,24 speaks of repentance as 'learning doctrine'; Israel

went astray morally because they allowed themselves to be taught wrong doctrine.

2:15- see on Acts 23:6.

2:16 There is an intended ambiguity in the phrase ―the faith of Abraham" (Rom. 4:16); this

'ambiguous genitive' can mean those who share "the (doctrinal) faith" , which Abraham also

believed; or those who have the kind of belief which Abraham had. Like Abraham, we are justified

by the faith in Christ; not faith in Christ, but more specifically the faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16). The

use of the definite article surely suggests that it is our possession of the same doctrinal truths (the

Faith) which Abraham had, which is what leads to faith in Christ and thereby our justification. The

life Paul lived was by the Faith of Christ; not simply by faith, as a verb, which is how grammatically

it should be expressed if this is what was meant; but by the Faith (Gal. 2:20).

2:19-21 Galatians was one of Paul‘s earlier letters. In it, he speaks of his own baptism: ―I have been

crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live‖ (Gal. 2:19-21). Years later he writes to the Romans

about their baptisms, in exactly the same language: ―All of us who have been baptized… our old

self was crucified with him… the life he lives he lives to God‖ (Rom. 6:1-10). He clearly seeks to

forge an identity between his readers and himself; their baptisms were [and are] as radical as his in

their import. Note how in many of his letters, especially Galatians and Corinthians, he switches so

easily between ―you‖ and ―we‖, as if to drive home the fact that there was to be no perception of

distance between him the writer and us the readers.

2:20- see on Mt. 27:26; 1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 2:16.

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus isn't a collection of ideas and theologies bound together in a statement

of faith. It is, rather, a proclamation of facts (and the Greek words used about the preaching of the

Gospel support that view of it) concerning a flesh and blood historical person, namely the Lord

Jesus Christ. The focus is all upon a concrete and actual person. Paul in Gal. 2:20 doesn't say: 'I live

by faith in the idea that the Son of God loved me'. Rather: "I live in faith, the faith which is in the

Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me" (RV). Faith is centred in a person- hence

the utterly central importance of our correctly understanding the Lord Jesus. We are clearly bidden

see the man Jesus as the focus of everything.

"I have been crucified with Christ: the life I now live is not my life, but the life which Christ lives in

me; and my present bodily life is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself

up for me" . The spirit of the risen Christ lived out in our lives is the witness of His resurrection. We

are Him to this world.

His cross affects our whole life, our deepest thought and action, to the extent that we can say with

Paul, in the silence of our own deepest and most personal reflection: ―I live, yet not I, but Christ

liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who

loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).

There is the sustained implication that the personal relationship between Jesus and each of His

followers is totally personal and unique. The Abrahamic covenant is made personally with every

member of the seed ―in their generations" (Gen. 17:7). The records of the renewing of the covenant

to Isaac and Jacob are but indicators that this is the experience of each one of the seed. This means

that the covenant love of God and the promise of personal inheritance of the land is made

personally, and confirmed by the shedding of Christ's blood, to each of us. Paul appreciated this

391

when he spoke of how the Son of God had loved him and died for him personally, even though that

act of death was performed for many others (Gal. 2:20). This is one of the most essential mysteries

of our redemption; that Christ gave Himself for me, so that He might make me His very own; and

therefore I wish to respond in total devotion to Him and His cause, to make Him the Man I fain

would follow to the end. And yet He did it for you and for you; for all of us His people. All the

emphasis on fellowship and family life, good as it is, must never blind us to this ultimately personal

relationship with the One who gave Himself for us. Each time a believer enters into covenant with

Christ through baptism, blood is in a sense shed; the Lord dies again as the believer dies again in the

waters if baptism. The Hebrew word translated ‗to cut a covenant‘ is also translated ‗cut off‘ in the

sense of death (Gen. 9:11; Lev. 20:2,3; Is. 48:9; Prov. 2:21). Death and blood shedding are essential

parts of covenant making.

In Gal. 2:20, Paul wrote of ―the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me‖; and yet some

years later he wrote in conscious allusion to this statement: ―Christ loved the church and gave

himself for it‖ (Eph. 5:25). He looked out from beyond his personal salvation to rejoice in the

salvation of others. He learnt that it was God manifestation in a multitude, not individual human

salvation, that was and is of the essence. And we follow a like path, from that day when we were

asked ‗why do you want to be baptized‘, and we replied something to the effect ‗because I want to

be in the Kingdom‘.

3:1- see on Rom. 1:18; Gal. 4:16.

Paul speaks to the Galatians in human terms, alluding to the pagan concept of ―the evil eye‖: ―Who

cast the evil eye on you?‖ (Gal. 3:1 Gk.). He rejected the superstitions of ―the evil eye‖, and yet he

uses the phrase in writing to them. Clearly Paul and the inspired writers wrote with a certain

freedom, not scared that they might be misinterpreted, but using contemporary language freely.

When Paul preached to the Galatians, he placarded forth Jesus Christ crucified in front of them: his

preaching of the Gospel involved a repeated and graphic portrayal of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth

as a historical event (Gal. 3:1). We are ―in Christ‖ to the extent that we are Christ to this world. In

this sense He has in this world no arms or legs or face than us. Paul was a placarding of Christ

crucified before the Galatians; to the Corinthians he was ―the face of Christ‖ (2 Cor. 2:10 RSV). It

was this marred visage of Paul which had impressed the Galatians with how much Paul was Christ-

manifest: ―Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an

angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus‖ (Gal. 4). He could truly say in Gal 2:20: ―I am crucified with

Christ‖, and that before their eyes ―Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth [‗placarded‘], crucified

among you… for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus‖ (Gal. 3:1; 6:17). Thus to preach

through cross carrying means sharing in the Lord‘s sufferings. It may mean being crucified by our

brethren for it as He was, physical hardship and pain… but this is the ground of credibility for our

witness.

It seems that Paul had gone through the process of crucifixion with them so realistically, that it was

as if Christ had suffered before their eyes. If you have seen that, Paul says, and the vision remains

with you, how can you turn away? And this is a powerful motivator for us too. The man who sees,

really sees, something of the Lord's agony, simply won't turn away, doctrinally or practically. But if

we turn away from the consideration, the motivation will not be there to keep on responding. In this

sense the crucifixion record almost has a mystical power in it, if it is properly apprehended.

3:5 Even in the first century, the work of the Spirit was not just confined to the miraculous gifts;

thus "He that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you" (Gal.3:5) suggests that

there was a non-miraculous work of the Spirit then. It seems clear that the miraculous gifts of the

Spirit were not possessed by all first century believers; and yet the epistles often imply that all

believers had received the Spirit (e.g. 2 Cor.1:22). The resolution of this is in the fact that all

392

believers then and now receive the non-miraculous effect of the Spirit. Indeed, Jude 19 suggests that

'having the spirit' could just refer to someone who is not "sensual", i.e. of the flesh. John was "filled

with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb... (going) in the Spirit and power of Elias...

waxed strong in spirit" (Lk.1:15,17,80); but "John did no miracle " (Jn.10:41). David associated

having God's holy Spirit with having free fellowship with Him due to sins being forgiven,

parallelling the holy Spirit with "a right spirit within me... a clean heart" (Ps.51:10,12); and Paul

spoke of God's willingness to forgive us as "the spirit of grace" (Heb.10:29), i.e. His spiritual gift.

Paul's reasoning in Gal.3:5,6 is similar- the Spirit is ministered to us by faith, in the same way as

Abraham's faith resulted in righteousness being imputed ('ministered') to him. Thus imputed

righteousness is made parallel to the gift of the Spirit.

3:6- see on Phil. 3:6.

3:8- see on Rom. 9:17.

3:9 Verses 10-13 are a parenthesis concerning the curse of the Law. If read without the parenthesis,

the flow of thought goes straight on: "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham

(v.9)... that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles" (v.14).

3:13- see on Acts 5:30.

The idea of the cross having been lived out throughout the Lord‘s life explains why Paul likens the

Lord on the cross to the body of the criminal lifted up after death, not in order to lead to death (Gal.

3:13; Dt. 21:23)- as if he understood the Lord to have been effectively dead unto sin at the time the

body was lifted up on the cross.

3:14 ―That we might receive the promise of the Spirit (a reference to the Comforter?) through

faith... that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ (what Jesus Christ promised: the Comforter?) might

be given to them that believe" (Gal. 3:14,22).

3:15- see on 1 Cor. 15:57.

3:15-20 Gal. 3:15-20 stresses how the Law came after the promises to Abraham, and cannot

disannul them. Reasoning back from Paul's writing, we can arrive at some understanding of what

the Judaists were saying. Their position was that baptism of Gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant

was fine, but they must keep the Law for salvation. Paul is pointing out that the promises to

Abraham offer eternal inheritance in the Kingdom on the basis of faith and grace, and neither the

Law of Moses nor any other form of legalism can change that fundamental basis. An appreciation of

the promises will therefore root us in the wonder of salvation by grace, to the point that we will

reject all forms of legalism whenever they are proposed in the ecclesia, and whenever our own flesh

seeks to justify itself by works achieved rather than by humbly accepting forgiveness of sins. That

the Lord's death took away the Law can be assented to us and passed by. But the RV of Romans

draws a difference between "the law" and "law" without the article, i.e. legality. Because we are

saved by grace, no legal code, of Moses or anyone else, can save us. Therefore we are free- but that

freedom is so wonderful that we are under ―the law of Christ", the rigid principle of always seeking

to act as this Man would do, who freed us from law. Otherwise, we end up replacing one form of

legalism [under Moses] with another, a set of laws given by Jesus. He has saved us in prospect,

outside of any law. And we are to rejoice in this and yet respond to it. Dostoevsky's epic The

Brothers Karamazov is really a parable of the terrible burden of this freedom and the forgiveness of

sins. In it, Jesus returns to earth. He is arrested, and the Inquisitor visits Him in the middle of the

night. He tries to explain to Jesus that people do not want freedom. They want security. He argues

with Jesus, that if one really loves people, then you make them happy- but not free. Freedom is

dangerous. People want law, not responsibility; they want the neurotic comfort of rules, not the

danger of decision making and the burdens it brings. Christ, says the Inquisitor, must not start up

this business about freedom and grace and the commitment and responsibility it demands. Let things

be; let the church have its laws. And will Jesus please go away. The life of grace to the extent that it

393

must be lived is a radical confrontation- it creates the necessity of making pure freewill decisions to

do and think acts of grace in response to God's grace. Grace has been presented as the easy way out.

It isn't. It is far, far more demanding than legalism.

3:16 A case can be made that the whole New Testament is a form of Midrash on the Old Testament,

re-interpreting it in the light of Christ. Paul so often employs the same literary devices found in the

rabbinic Midrashim, e.g. al tiqra [read not thus, but thus- Gal. 3:16 is a classic example].

3:19 The descendants of Jacob / Israel were not righteous, although they were God's people. The

law of Moses was given to them "because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). And yet the very existence

of the Mosaic Law generated sin, and thereby the experience of God's wrath upon His people (Rom.

4:15). So why were Israel given the Law? In some ways (and this isn't the only reason) to confirm

them in their sinfulness. The original Mosaic Law was "holy, just and good" in itself (Rom. 7:12).

But later, God gave Israel "laws that were not good" (referring to the Halachas of the Scribes?) so

that they would go further away from Him (Ez. 20:25). He must have done this by inspiring men to

say things which were genuinely communicated by God, but which were false.

3:20 Reflect a moment upon the sheer power and import of the fact that the Father promised things

to us, who are Abraham‘s seed by faith and baptism. The Law of Moses was a conditional promise,

because there were two parties; but the promises to us are in some sense unconditional, as God is

the only ―one‖ party (Gal. 3:19,20). And as if God‘s own unconditional promise isn‘t enough, He

confirmed those promises to us with the blood of His very own son. Bearing this in mind, it's not

surprising that Ps. 111:5 states that God "will ever be mindful of His covenant". This means that

He's thinking about the covenant made with us all the time! And yet how often in daily life do we

reflect upon the fact that we really are in covenant relationship with God... how often do we

recollect the part we share in the promises to Abraham, how frequently do we feel that we really are

in a personal covenant with God Almighty?

3:22-see on Gal. 3:14.

Sin occurs as a major them in Paul‘s writings – not just in Romans, where he speaks so much about

sin without hinting that a supernatural ‗Satan‘ figure is involved with it. He sees sin as playing an

almost positive, creative role in the formation of the true Christian, both individually and in terms of

salvation history. He speaks of how the Mosaic law was given to as it were highlight the power of

sin; but through this it lead us to Christ, through our desperation and failure to obey, ―that (Gk. hina,

a purpose clause) we might be righteoused by faith‖ (Gal. 3:24–26). The curses for disobedience

were ―in order that (Gk. hina) the blessing of Abraham would come upon the Gentiles‖ (Gal. 3:10–

14); ―the Scripture consigned all things to sin, in order that (Gk. hina) what was promised to faith in

Jesus Christ, might be given to those who have faith‖ (Gal. 3:22). Note that it was the Law, ―the

Scripture‖, which consigned things to sin – not a personal Satan. My point is that sin was used by

God, hina, ‗in order that‘, there would be an ultimately positive spiritual outcome. Indeed this

appears to be the genius of God, to work through human failure to His glory. This view of sin,

which any mature believer will surely concur with from his or her life experience, is impossible to

square with the ideas of dualism, whereby God and ‗sin‘ are radically opposed, fighting a pitched

battle ranging between Heaven and earth, with no common ground. No – God is truly Almighty in

every sense, and this includes His power over sin. The life, death and resurrection of His Son were

His way of dealing with it – to His glory.

3:23 In the first century, a person was defined not so much by their unique personal character, credit

was not given for who they had become or stopped being... but rather by the place in society into

which they were born. And so these group-oriented people came to live out the expectations of

society- and so the whole process rolled on through the generations. It was continuity rather than

change, tradition rather than transformation, which was valued. Change was seen as some kind of

deviancy- whereas the Christian gospel is all about change! The past was seen as more glorious than

394

the present and the future, a pattern to be followed- whereas the Gospel of the future Kingdom of

God on earth taught that the best time is ahead. And so often Paul compares the "past" of our lives

with the much better "now" in Christ (Gal. 3:23-27; 4:8,9; Rom. 6:17-22; Eph. 2:11-22; 5:8).

Our attitude to the doctrines of the one Faith is our attitude to the body of Christ. Paul recounts how

he destroyed "the faith" and also destroyed (same Greek word) "the church of God" (Gal. 3:13,23).

On one level, the Mosaic Law was a set of such intricate regulations that was almost impossible to

keep. And yet it led men to Christ as a gentle slave leading the children to the teacher. I don‘t think

that the Law of Moses led people to Christ in the sense that they cracked the various types and

worked it all out. There‘s not one example that I can think of where an Old Testament character did

this. Indeed it could appear from Gal. 3:23 and other New Testament passages that until Christ

actually came, the Old Testament believers were ―shut up unto the faith which should afterward be

revealed‖. Therefore the types etc. of the Law of Moses couldn‘t have been perceived by them in

the same way as we understand them. Hence the Lord‘s comment that many righteous men had

longed to understand the things of Jesus which the disciples saw and heard in reality. ―In other

ages‖ those things of Christ were not made known to men as they were revealed in the New

Testament by the preaching of the apostles and New Testament prophets (Eph. 3:5). The Old

Testament prophets even seemed to understand that the things they saw and wrote were not so much

for themselves as for us (1 Pet. 1:12). Or reflect on the implications of Gal. 3:23: ―Before faith

came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith [in Jesus] which should afterwards be

revealed‖. The Law was a shadow created as it were by the concrete reality of Christ. We can look

back and see it all now, but I don‘t think the types predicted anything to the people of the time. So

how then did the Law lead people to Christ? Was it not that they were convicted of guilt, and cried

out for a Saviour? ―The law entered , that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace

did much more abound: that… grace might reign… unto eternal life by Jesus‖ (Rom. 5:20,21). This

was the purpose of the Law. And thus Paul quotes David‘s rejoicing in the righteousness imputed to

him when he had sinned and had no works left to do- and changes the pronoun from ―he‖ to ―they‖

(Rom. 4:6-8). David‘s personal experience became typical of that of each of us. It was through the

experience of that wretched and hopeless position that David and all believers come to know the

true ‗blessedness‘ of imputed righteousness and sin forgiven by grace. Perhaps Gal. 3:22 sums up

what we have been saying: ―The Scripture [in the context, this refers to the Mosaic Law] hath

concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that

believe‖. And Paul goes on to say in this very context that the law brings us unto Christ (Gal. 3:24).

It brings us- not those who lived under the law. How does it do that? By convicting us of sin,

‗concluding‘ us as being under the control of sin.

3:24 The ultimate teacher must be the Lord Himself, not the pastor or speaking brother. The Law

was a paidogogos, a slave who lead the children to the school teacher. And the teacher, Paul says, is

Christ (Gal. 3:23-25). He uses the whole body to make increase of itself in love- not just the elders.

3:26 By being baptized into Christ, all that is true of Him becomes true of us. Entering the body of

Christ carries this implication. We must aspire to be united, with neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor

female etc., because "ye are all one man in Christ" (Gal. 3:28 RV). We "are all sons of God" (3:26

RV) because of our baptism into the Son of God. And so Paul goes on to reason that just as Christ

was "the heir" (cp. "this is the heir…"), who is "lord of all", "even so we…" were kept under the law

for a time (Gal. 4:1-3). The basis of our unity is that there is only one Jesus, and by being in Him we

are living lives committed to the imitation of that same man. It's painless enough to read Gal. 3:27-

29- that all those baptized "in Christ" therefore are in a status where there is neither Jew nor Gentile,

no human barriers between us. But this is actually something we have to live out in life in order for

it to become reality.

3:27 Baptism is a putting on of the Lord Jesus, a union with Him; which is something essentially

ongoing (Gal. 3:27). The Lord Himself spoke of sharing His baptism as being the same as drinking

395

His cup, sharing His cross (Mk. 10:39); which, again, is a process. Likewise Peter saw baptism as

not only the one off act, but more importantly a pledge to live a life in good conscience with God (1

Pet. 3:21). 'Obeying the truth' is not only at baptism, but a lifelong pursuit (Gal. 5:7). The whole

body of believers in Christ are being baptized into the body of the Lord Jesus in an ongoing sense (1

Cor. 12:13 Gk.), in that collectively and individually we are growing up into Him who is the Head

(Eph. 4:15). See on Col. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:23.

3:27-29 Gal. 3:27-29 teaches that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free, male nor female…

consciously alluding to the Jewish morning prayer of the male Jew, which thanked God that he was

nor born a Gentile, a slave nor a woman.

3:28 For Paul to calmly teach in Gal. 3:28 that baptism into Christ meant that there was now no

longer differentiation between male and female, slave and free, Jew, Greek or any other ethnic

group, called all the first century understandings of society into total question. Indeed, the idea that

Gentiles could become spiritual "Jews", and that the Jews weren't the real children of Abraham, was

an intentional reversal of the categories around which society had been built. Much of the early

'geography' of the first century involved stereotypical descriptions of ethnic and geographical

groups, usually ending up with praising the Greco-Roman peoples as being superior in every way to

all others. Yet this worldview, which was accepted even by the despised ethnic groups about

themselves, had to be ended for those in Christ. Being in Him was to be their defining feature. This

was equally radical for the Jews, who held themselves above these stereotypes about themselves.

This made it hard psychologically for Jews to convert to Christianity. There were elements of

Christian teaching which were a direct affront to Judaism. Part of being a Christian was to expect to

be treated by the Jews in just the same way as they had treated Jesus. The Sabbath was replaced

with keeping the first day of the week for worship; the food laws were reduced by Paul‘s inspired

teaching to parts of ―the weak and beggarly elements‖. The Jewish hatred of the Christians is

revealed by the riots that ensued when the Gospel was preached in the synagogues, and in the

persecution of the Christians at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem, Damascus and in the Asian

cities (according to the letters in Rev. 2,3). The insistence that Jewish converts be baptized would

have been hard of acceptance; for Gentiles took just such a ritual bath when they converted to

Judaism. For orthodox Jews to submit to baptism demanded a lot- for it implied they were not by

birth part of the true Israel as they had once proudly thought. The Jews thought of Israel in the very

terms which Paul applies to Jesus: "We Thy people whom Thou hast honoured and hast called the

Firstborn and Only-Begotten, Near and Beloved One". The New Testament uses these titles to

describe the Lord Jesus Christ- and we must be baptized into Him in order to be in His Name and

titles. The Lord Jesus was thus portrayed as Israel idealized and personified, all that Israel the

suffering servant should have been; thus only by baptism into Christ of Jew and Gentile could they

become part of the true seed of Abraham, the Israel of God (Gal. 3:27-29). The act of baptism into

Christ is no less radical for us in our contexts today than it was for first century Jews. All we once

mentally held dear, we have to give up.

Gal. 3:27-29 explains that through baptism into the Abrahamic covenant, there is a special unity

between all in that covenant. Slave and free, male and female, Jew and Gentile are all thereby

united, as they were in the early church. David Bosch comments: "The revolutionary nature of the

early Christian mission manifested itself, inter alia, in the new relationships that came into being in

the community. Jew and Roman, Greek and barbarian, free and slave, rich and poor, woman and

man, accepted one another as brothers and sisters. It was a movement without analogy, indeed a

sociological impossibility". Likewise ecclesial life today can seem "a sociological impossibility",

but through the power of the most basic facts of the Gospel preached to Abraham, this incredible

unity is possible. As a nexus "without analogy", the true Christian community of itself ought to

attract the attention of earnest men and women- just as the Lord predicted. Our unity should be the

basis of our appeal to men. And yet our divided state is a tragic witness against us in this regard.

396

Because there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ means that in practice, amongst those that "have

put on the new man [a reference to baptism into Christ]… there cannot be Greek and Jew,

circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman [clear allusion to Gal.

3:27-29]. But Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore… a heart of compassion, kindness, humility,

meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another and forgiving one another" (Col. 3:10-13 RV).

These things are what the promises to Abraham are all about in practice! Because we are all now

united in Christ in our status as Abraham's seed, therefore we must see to it that through kindness,

patience etc. there really is not Jew and Greek, or division of any kind, between us.

3:29- see on Mt. 25:34.

Contrary to what is often claimed, Paul went out of his way to show that contemporary views of

women were unacceptable for those in the Lord. His teaching in Gal. 3:27-29 that in Christ, there is

neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male or female, is surely conscious allusion to the Jewish

traditional morning prayer for men: ―My God, I thank thee that I was not born a Gentile but a Jew,

not a slave but a free man, not a woman but a man‖. He is surely saying that for those in Christ, the

Jewish male world-view is unacceptable.

4:3 Paul says that the Galatians formerly lived as enslaved to the ―elements of the cosmos‖ (Gal.

4:3), also a phrase used in the Jewish apostate writings; ―what by nature are not gods‖ (tois phusei

mê ousin theois; Gal. 4:8,9). They are ―weak and powerless elements‖ (ta asthenê kai ptocha

stoicheia; Gal. 4:9). The system of Satan, sinful Angels, demons etc. which the Jews believed in,

Paul is showing to now be non-existent and at the best powerless. See on Col. 2:17.

4:6- see on Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Jude 20.

4:7- see on Mt. 25:34.

An advantage of reading versions that use ―ye‖ and ―thou‖ is that one can discern at a glance when

‗you‘ plural and ‗you‘ singular is being used. Gal. 3:26-29 speaks in the plural: ―Ye are all the

children of God by faith in Christ... and if ye be Christ‘s [by baptism into Him], then are ye

Abraham‘s seed and heirs‖. The very same ideas are then repeated a few verses later, but with the

singular ‗you‘: ―And because ye are sons... wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a

son [not ‗sons‘], then an [singular] heir of God through Christ‖ (Gal. 4:6,7); and just to press the

point home, he reverts to speaking of ―you‖ [plural] in the subsequent verses. It‘s as if Paul is

talking generally, in the plural, of us all as a baptized community, heirs together of the promises, all

in covenant relationship with God; but then he as it were swirls in upon us each individually; these

promises really apply to us each one personally. And the outcome of this must be a deep seated joy

and gratitude for God‘s grace. The focus of Scripture and the Lord Jesus is upon individuals, not

upon the building of a faceless and person-less social structure. Notice how often Paul talks of

―you‖ or ―ye‖, and then focuses down to ―thee‖ or ―thou‖- from the you plural to the you singular.

Take Gal. 4:6,7: ―Your [plural] hearts… thou [singular] art…‖; or ―Ye [plural] are all sons of

God… thou art… a son‖ (Gal. 3:26; 4:7 RV). It all comes down to us personally…

4:8 Paul challenges the Galatians: ―You who were enslaved to those who were not really gods...

How can you turn back again to those weak and beggarly spirits (stoicheia), whose slaves you want

to be once more?‖ (Gal. 4:8,9). Here he parallels demonic spirits with ‗gods who are not really

gods‘. But note how Paul argues [under Divine inspiration] – ―even if there are‖ such demons /

idols... for us there is to be only one God whom we fear and worship. This in fact is a continuation

of the Psalmists‘ attitude. Time and again the gods / idols of the pagan nations are addressed as if

they exist, but are ordered to bow down in shame before Yahweh of Israel (Ps. 29:1,2,10; 97:7).

Whether they exist or not becomes irrelevant before the fact that they are powerless before the one

true God – and therefore it is He whom we should fear, trusting that He alone engages with our lives

for our eternal good in the end. ―Yahweh is a great King above all gods‖ (Ps. 95:3) shows the

Divine style – rather than overly stressing that the gods / idols / demons don‘t exist, the one true

397

God isn‘t so primitive. Neither were the authors and singers of Psalm 95. The greatness of His

Kingship is what‘s focused upon – not the demerits and non-existence of other gods. To do so

would be altogether too primitive for the one true God. And likewise with the Lord‘s miracles –

God‘s gracious power to save was demonstrated, this was where the focus was; and its very

magnitude shows the relative non-existence of ‗demons‘.

4:9- see on Gal. 1:1.

4:9,10 elements- the Greek for "elements" is always used concerning the elements of the Mosaic

Law.

4:11 He feared he may have ―laboured in vain‖ for some of them (Gal. 4:11), but he writes of his

expectations in a totally positive way: ―Christ hath redeemed us… that the blessing of Abraham

might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise of the Spirit

[i.e. salvation]‖ (Gal. 3:13,14).

"I am afraid of you (i.e. what your position will result in for both you and me at the judgment?), lest

I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal. 4:11).

4:12 The way Paul begs us to follow him (e.g. "I beseech you, be as I am", Gal. 4:12) indicates the

degree of confidence he had in acceptance by his Lord, his certainty that his way to the Kingdom

was valid (Surely he had been told this by some Divine revelation?). See on Phil. 1:10.

Paul plays powerfully upon the idea of the two selves when he appeals to the Galatians "be as I am;

for I am as you are" (Gal. 4:12). At first hearing, this seems nonsensical- how can Paul beseech the

Galatians to be like him, if he was already like them? Fact is, their behaviour was unlike him; yet he

saw their spiritual selves as being like him. And he asks them to be that spiritual self which he

perceived them to have. We likewise need to perceive our difficult brethren as having a spiritual

self, which they need to live up to.

4:13 William Barclay comments: ―Paul never saw a boat riding at anchor or moored at a quay but

he wanted to board her and to preach the gospel to the lands beyond. He never saw a range of hills

in the distance but he wanted to cross them and to preach the gospel to the lands beyond‖. When

Paul was in Pamphylia, he decided to go on to Galatia, where on account of infirmity of the flesh he

preached to the Galatians (Gal. 4:13). The suggestion has been made that the low-lying Pamphylia

was a source of malaria, which may have been Paul‘s ―thorn in the flesh‖, and he therefore sought

the uplands of Galatia. And yet he could easily have returned to Antioch. But instead, he went on,

up into the highlands, to spread the Gospel yet further. The way there led up precipitous roads to the

plateau; the roads were cut by mountain streams, prone to flash floods which often carried travellers

to their death. And these roads were the haunt of bandits, who would murder a man just for a copper

coin. No wonder Mark went back. But as William Barclay observes, ―the wonder is not so much

that Mark went back as that Paul went on‖. Although a sick man, he was driven by that desire to

spread the Gospel further. Surely this is why his Lord was so pleased to open the hearts of the

Galatians to the Gospel. The way the Holy Spirit controlled Paul's missionary itineraries is an

example of how mission work is almost purposefully made difficult at times. Thus Paul was

forbidden to go north into Bithynia, and from going Southwest into coastal Asia Minor- and there

were good roads leading to those places from where he was, and it would've seemed they were the

logical places to go and expand the work of the Gospel. But instead Paul was told to go diagonally,

cross country, through the rough roads and passes of central Asia Minor, to Troas- from where he

was told to go to Macedonia. And on the way through that wild mountainous area, it seems Paul

became sick (Gal. 4:13). And we follow similar paths in our witness, if it is truly God directed.

4:15- see on 2 Cor. 12:7.

If we can rise up to all this, placarding forth the Lord's crucifixion sufferings in our lives, then there

will be a power and credibility to our preaching which will be hard to resist. It was before the eyes

398

of the Galatians that they saw in Paul, Jesus Christ crucified (Gal. 3:1). But the only other reference

to the eyes of the Galatians is in Gal. 4:15- where we read that they had been so transfixed by Paul's

preaching that they had been ready to pluck out their eyes. And where's the only other reference to

plucking out eyes? It's in the Lord's teaching, where He says that if our eye offends us, we should

pluck it out [Mt. 5:29- same Greek words used]. The connection is surely this: Paul's personal

reflection of the crucified Jesus was so powerful, so compellingly real and credible, that it motivated

his hearers to rise up to the spirit of the very hardest demands of the moral teaching of that same

Jesus. Insofar as we genuinely live out the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, our preaching of His

radical moral demands will likewise be heeded. The crucified Christ that Paul placarded before their

eyes was ―the truth" (Gal. 3:1; 4:14-16); and the integrity and reality of that truth was confirmed by

the congruence between the example of Paul, and the reality of the crucified Jesus whom he

manifested to them. In Paul's body language, in his character, in his response to problems and

frustrations great and small, in the way he coped with physical weakness, his audience somehow

saw the crucified Christ. In the same letter, Paul reminds the Galatians how they had initially seen

him preaching to them in a weak bodily state, and had seen Christ in him then (Gal. 4:13,14). He

says in Gal. 3:1 that they saw Christ crucified in him. Perhaps the way Paul handled a sickness or

bodily weakness which he then had, somehow reflected to his audience the spirit of Christ crucified.

4:16 Society and human existence was all about what others thought of you; appearances were all

important, loss of face before your community was a fate worse than death, and the honour of your

family or community was crucial. You had to be polite, say what was right in the ears of your

hearers rather than what was true, never shame those in your 'group' by telling inconvenient truths,

say what the others want to hear. Against this background, and it's a background not so strange for

any of us today in essence, the commands to be truthful, even if it meant becoming the enemy of

some because you told the truth (Gal. 4:16), take on a new challenge.

Gal. 3:1 remonstrates with the Galatians as to how they could not obey the truth when the crucified

Christ had been so clearly displayed to them; clearly Paul saw obedience to the truth as obedience to

the implications of the cross. There is a powerful parallel in Gal. 4:16: I am your enemy because I

tell you the truth... you are enemies of the cross of Christ. Thus the parallel is made between the

cross and the truth. We are sanctified by the truth (Jn. 17:19); but our sanctification is through

cleansing in the Lord‘s blood. The same word is used of our sanctification through that blood (Heb.

9:13; 10:29; 13:12). Perhaps this is why Dan. 8:11,12 seems to describe the altar as ―the truth‖. The

cross of Jesus is the ultimate truth. There we see humanity for what we really are; there we see the

real effect of sin. Yet above all, there we see the glorious reality of the fact that a Man with our

nature overcame sin, and through His sacrifice we really can be forgiven the untruth of all our sin;

and thus have a real, concrete, definite hope of the life eternal.

4:24-31 It can be argued that Paul's extended allegory in Gal. 4:24-31 about "Jerusalem which now

is" has some reference to the Jewish Christian elders in Jerusalem who had made the deal with him

about making the Gentile converts keep at least some of the Jewish laws. The heavenly Jerusalem

which is "free" would then be a reference to the freedom Paul felt for his Gentile converts; and the

persecution of those born after the spirit would then be a sideways reference to the trouble he was

experiencing from the Jewish-Christian attacks upon him. Paul observes earlier that " I speak after

the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one

maketh it void, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3:15). His speaking humanly was perhaps because he was

tongue in cheek alluding to the human covenant of Acts 15, to which he believed the Jewish

Christian elders in Jerusalem had "added" by still demanding that Christian converts lived in a

Jewish manner.

4:26 believed that "as the navel is found at the center of a human being, so the land of Israel is

found at the center of the world... Jerusalem is the center of the land of Israel, the temple is at center

of Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies is at the center of the temple, the ark is at the center of the Holy of

399

Holies... which spot is the foundation of the world... the holy city... is also the mother city". This

was all consciously countermanded in Hebrews, where each of these features of the temple is shown

to have been surpassed in Christ; and it is the Heavenly Jerusalem which is now "the mother of us

all" (Heb. 12:22; Gal. 4:26). And of course Gal. 4 drives home the point that it is the "Jerusalem

which is above" which is the true Jerusalem, whereas the earthly Jerusalem and temple are in fact

now to be associated with bondage and Abraham's illegitimate seed. This language of Hebrews and

Galatians was just as tough on the Romans, who considered Italia as the "mother of all lands", and

Rome to be the mother city.

4:27 Abraham‘s relationship with Hagar doesn‘t really sound like marriage. And yet she is called

―she which hath an husband‖ (Gal. 4:27), as if God recognized the relationship even though it was

less than ideal.

4:30 Paul warns that the Galatian Jews had suffered so much but in vain, seeing they were returning

to the Law (Gal. 3:4). It is no accident that Gal. 4:25 draws the contrast between the two

Jerusalems- perhaps a reference to the Jerusalem ecclesia, who had returned to the bondage of the

law, and the spiritual Jerusalem. And now Paul goes so far as to say that the Legalists must be cast

out of the true ecclesia (Gal. 4:30). Circumcision shielded from persecution in Galatia (Gal. 6:12) in

that it was the Jews and their ―false brethren‖ who infiltrated the ecclesias (Gal. 2:4), and who were

responsible for the deaths of many of the first century apostles and prophets. This suggests that the

circumcision party within the ecclesias was linked with the Roman and Jewish authorities, and

therefore ‗satan‘ is a term used for them all. It got beyond dirty politics in the church.

Sarah's screaming indignation can be well imagined. Consider which words were probably stressed

most by her: "Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir

(just hear her voice!) with my son, even with Isaac" (Gen. 21:10). This is in harmony with her

previous bitterness and aggression to Hagar and Abraham. Her attitude in implying that Ishmael

was not the seed is gently rebuked by God in his subsequent words to Abraham concerning Ishmael:

"He is thy seed" (Gen. 21:13). And yet Sarah's words are quoted in Gal. 4:30 as inspired Scripture!

Here we see the wonder of the God with whom we deal, in the way in which He patiently bore with

Sarah and Abraham. He saw through her anger, her jealousy, the pent up bitterness of a lifetime, and

he saw her faith. And he worked through that screaming, angry woman to be His prophet.

According to Gal. 4:30, God Himself spoke through her in those words, outlining a principle which

has been true over the generations; that the son of the slave must be cast out, and that there must

always be conflict between him and the true seed. Sarah in her time of child-birth is likened to us all

as we enter the Kingdom, full of joy (Is. 54:1-4); and yet at that time she was eaten up with pride

and joy that she could now triumph over her rival. And yet Sarah at that time is seen from a

righteous perspective, in that she is a type of us as we enter the Kingdom. God's mercy to Sarah and

Abraham is repeated to us daily. See on Heb. 11:11.

5:1- see on Gal. 5:11.

For freedom did Christ set us free (Gal. 5:1 RV). The new person, the essential you and me, is

characterized by sudden, creative welling up to the Father‘s glory. ―I am the life‖ (Jn. 11:25). This

welling up of new life is a characteristic of true conversion. This is why the elderly, the infirm, the

chronically shy, experience the flowering of the person, the sense of new life even in the face of the

outward man perishing daily; because their inward man, their real self, is being so strongly infused

with power (2 Cor. 4:16). This explains why the graph of spiritual growth in any person is not a

smooth upward curve; it is a very jagged line. Our true person asserts itself in those moments of

totally free choice to serve our Lord. But we so easily allow our lives to slip back into the

automatisms which define our internet personas.

Romans 6 compares baptism to a change of masters. The point has been made that this is a reference

to manumission, whereby a 'redeemer' gave a 'ransom' to a god, which meant that a slave was freed

400

from his master and became a free man, although he was counted as a slave to the god to whom the

redeemer had paid the ransom. Indeed, lutron, one of the words translated "ransom" with regard to

the blood of Christ, has this specific meaning. Deissmann comments: "When anybody heard the

Greek word lutron, "ransom", in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase

money for manumitting slaves". This means that when we come to understand the atonement, we

understand that the price has been paid to free us from slavery into the service of God. We are in the

position of a slave who suddenly discovers some gracious benefactor has made the longed for

payment of ransom. And so he goes free, but is willingly and eagerly in slavery to the god to whom

his redeemer had paid the price. In our case this is none other than the One, Almighty God of Israel.

And the ransom is the precious blood of Christ, which thereby compels our willing slavery to the

new Master. There are other references to manumission in Gal. 5:1,13 RV: "For freedom did Christ

set us free… ye have been called unto freedom" and in the references to our being bought with a

price, i.e. the blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). And this is the horror of 2 Pet. 2:1- "denying even

the Master that bought them [out]". To turn against their gracious redeemer was the ultimate sick act

for a slave freed through manumission. And this is the horror of turning away from the Lord. The

death of Christ for us is thereby a warning to us of the end of sin and therefore the need to change.

The world, Paul told the Romans, seeks to push us into its mould (Rom. 12:2 J.B. Phillips). And this

is increasingly true, as people crowded together catch the same bus each day to arrive at roughly the

same time, reading the same newspapers, watching the same soap operas… automatic lives. Yet the

real self created in the believer is ultimately free. For freedom did Christ set us free (Gal. 5:1 RV).

The new person, the essential you and me, is characterized by sudden, creative welling up to the

Father‘s glory. This doesn‘t mean that we have no habits- regular prayer, Bible study, meeting

together etc. are all part of the new person.

The spirit of life in Christ sets us free from sin (Rom. 8:2); but Gal. 5:1 simply says that ―Christ‖

has set us free [the same Greek phrase] from sin. The Man Christ Jesus is His ―spirit of life‖; the

man and His way of life were in perfect congruence. They always were; for in Him the word was

made flesh. There was ‗truth‘ in His very person, in that the principles of the God of Truth were

perfectly and totally lived out in His person and being. Back in 1964, Emil Brunner wrote a book,

whose title speaks for itself: Truth As Encounter. Truth is essentially a person- the Lord Jesus. Truth

is an experience, a way of life, a total assurance of forgiveness and salvation, a validation of the new

man created within us, in a way so deep, and so strongly felt, that all else appears as falsehood

compared to that surpassing ‗truth‘.

5:3 God uses language differently to how we do because He can read motives. Thus Galatians 5:3

says that ―I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law‖. Paul

and many other Jewish Christians were circumcised, but Paul is reasoning in the letter to the

Galatians that the true Jewish believer was not under an obligation to keep the Law: ―For in Jesus

Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision‖ (Gal. 5:6). Therefore ―every man

that is circumcised‖ in Galatians 5:3 must mean ‗every man who trusts in circumcision or wants to

undergo it‘. Some modern paraphrases support this, but the point is that what God actually said was

that ―every man that is circumcised… is a debtor to do the whole law‖ (see Greek text). Those

words are just not true if taken out of context; we need to appreciate that God is speaking from the

perspective of knowing men‘s motives.

5:4- see on Gal. 6:14.

5:6 ―Faith is wrought by love‖ (Gal. 5:6 RVmg.) in that the fruits of the Spirit reinforce each other

in an upward spiral. Faith leads to humility, and vice versa. Realizing we of ourselves are

insufficient results in humility, which in turn develops faith. Hence Prov. 20:6 comments that a man

of faith will not "proclaim his own goodness".

401

5:7 "Ye were running well; who did hinder you, that ye should not [keep on] obey the truth?" (Gal.

5:7) suggests that obeying the Truth is not just in baptism; it is an ongoing motivation to keep

running the race of practical life in Christ. See on 1 Pet. 1:22.

5:10 Recognizing others as being ―in Christ‖ imparts an altogether higher quality to our

relationships. The cynicism and negativity which we naturally bring to many inter-personal

encounters is taken away by a deep recognition that our brethren are indeed in the Lord. Having

noted that the Galatians did not any longer ―believe the truth‖, Paul can say that he has ―confidence

to you-ward in the Lord‖ (Gal. 5:10 RV). Because they were ―in the Lord‖, he could hope against

all human indications, that they would indeed rise up to an imitation of the Lord in whom Paul

believed them to be. And so we have to ask ourselves, whether we indeed have that ―confidence‖

about others, because we know them to be ―in the Lord‖? Or do we judge them after the flesh…?

5:11- see on 1 Cor. 1:23; 9:17.

The more you read between the lines of Paul's letters, the more evident it is that his very own

brethren almost unbelievably slandered him. Thus the Galatians whispered that Paul still preached

circumcision (Gal. 5:11), probably basing that nasty rumour on the fact he had circumcised

Timothy. See on 1 Tim. 5:19.

The cross is described as a skandalon, an offence (Gal. 5:11). Either we stumble (are offended) on

it, or we stumble and are offended in the sense of spiritually falling away. Either we share the

Lord‘s cross, shedding our blood with His ―outside the gate‖ of this world; or we will share the

condemnation of those whose blood is to be shed in destruction outside the city (Rev. 14:20). It‘s

Golgotha now, or later. The cross makes men stumble; either falling on that stone and being broken

into humility, or the uncommitted stumbling at the huge demand which the cross implies. Paul had

all this in mind when he wrote of the lust / affections of the flesh (Gal. 5:1), using a word elsewhere

translated "sufferings" in the context of Christ's cross. The sufferings, the lust, the cross of the

flesh... or the cross of the Lord Jesus.

5:12 Galatians 5:12 contains a play on words which may seem quite inappropriate to us; so much so

that many a Bible translator and expositor has had problems with it. The idea is that Paul wishes that

the circumcision party would go further and fully emasculate themselves. This just isn‘t the way

men would use language if they wrote the Bible uninspired by God. See on Lk. 17:37.

5:13- see on Jn. 8:32.

5:14 Mt. 5:17 = Gal. 5:14. Christ fulfilled the Law by His supreme love of His neighbour (us) as

Himself.

The Old Covenant's command to love one's neighbour as oneself was in the context of life in Israel.

One's "neighbour" referred to others belonging to the Covenant people; not to those in the 'world' of

the surrounding nations. New Testament quotation of this command totally supports this view;

under the New Covenant, we must love those within the ecclesia as we love ourselves (Gal. 5:14). 1

Cor. 6:1 (R.V.) speaks of brethren within the ecclesia as "neighbours‖. Again, this is not in itself

proof that we should not give to (e.g.). famine relief. But it surely indicates that we are misguided in

thinking that such action is fulfilling this command. However, there is copious evidence within the

Law that Israel were to be considerate and concerned for the Gentile world around them. But there

is no Biblical evidence that Israel preached a social Gospel to them.

To love one‘s neighbour as oneself is to fulfil the law (Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:10); and yet the Lord‘s

death was the supreme fulfilment of it (Mt. 5:18; Col. 2:14). Here was the definition of love for

one‘s neighbour. Not a passing politeness and occasional seasonal gift, whilst secretly and

essentially living the life of self-love and self-care; but the love and the death of the cross, for His

neighbours as for Himself. In Him, in His time of dying, we see the definition of love, the fulfilment

of the justice and unassuming kindness and thought for others which was taught in the Mosaic Law.

402

And we through bearing one another‘s burdens, through bearing with their moral and intellectual

and spiritual failures, must likewise fulfil the law, in a voluntary laying down of our lives for each

other (Gal. 6:2). And in this, as with the Lord, will be our personal salvation.

5:15 The surrounding world with whom they will then be associated will destroy themselves,

brother against brother (Zech. 14:13); and they will have a part in this destruction. If we bite and

devour each other, we may be consumed by each other (Gal. 5:15)- this is the same idea of brethren

killing brethren. Israel were condemned to destruction by brother being dashed against brother (Jer.

13:14). Indeed, biting and devouring each other is a quotation from Is. 9:19,20 LXX (although not

apparent in the AV), where Israel in their judgment for unfaithfulness would bite and devour each

others' bodies in the siege. Paul is saying that if we bite and devour each other with our words (and

we are all guilty of this at times), we are acting as the condemned. If we do this, we may well be

consumed of each other- and this may have a terribly literal fulfillment, in that as the world destroys

every man his neighbour in the confusion of the last day, so the rejected may do the same, living out

the bigotry and passive anger they felt towards each other in their ecclesial life. This all needs some

meditation. For there are very few of us not caught up in some division, personality clash, biting or

devouring.

5:16 If we walk in the spirit (another way of describing the spiritual ‗way of life‘) we will not fulfil

the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). The Galatians found that their flesh lusted against the spirit to the

extent that they just couldn‘t do the things they knew they should- because they were not led of the

spirit, they were still under law (Gal. 5:18). They didn‘t have a spiritual way of life, instead they

were just trying to keep certain specific commandments, and they found they just couldn‘t live a

victorious spiritual life. They didn‘t give their hearts to the things of the Truth, and so their spirit

couldn‘t give rise to love, joy, peace, patience- the fruits of the spiritual life.

Paul expressed his concept of the 'upward' and 'downward' spirals in two words: "the spirit" and "the

flesh". "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (this doesn't mean the

Spiritual believer won't sin; but he won't be on the downward spiral at the same time as he's on the

upward spiral). For (in some of the early believers in Galatia) the flesh lusteth against the Spirit...

and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye (weak believers) cannot do the things that ye

would (this isn't a sympathetic lament from Paul, because of what follows:). But if ye be led of the

Spirit, ye are not under the law... they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections

and lusts (i.e. they shouldn't have been experiencing the "lust" between the flesh and spirit which

they were). If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk (live each moment) in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16-25).

It is apparent that in the early church, there were those who had slid back from the upward spiral

(life in "the Spirit") to the downward spiral of "the flesh". The tragedy is that mainstream

Christianity today has so morally retreated that it effectively teaches that the way of "the flesh", this

downward spiral of justifying sexual immorality as acceptable, is in fact the way of the "Spirit", in

that they believe that their newfound moral 'freedom' is part of a more mature spiritual level which

they have reached.

5:18 There are clear parallels between Col. 3:16 and Gal. 5:18,19: "Let the word of Christ dwell in

you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual

songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord… but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to

yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the

Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus

Christ‖. Clearly the Word of Christ is equated with being "filled with the Spirit".

5:19 The greatest barrier against grace is our own psychology of works; our belief that even what is

good about us, in our character and in our deeds, is a result of our own unaided effort. Not for

nothing does Paul contrast the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:19,23). As

William Barclay noted: ―A work is something which a man produces for himself; a fruit is

something which is produced by a power which he does not possess. Man cannot make a fruit‖. It‘s

403

because of this that works are so glorified in society; it‘s why the elderly and weak are somehow

despised because they‘re not ‗productive‘ of ‗works‘. Grace therefore cuts right across the way our

rationalistic society, whether Marxist or capitalist, worships productivity. Our tendency to value,

indeed to worship, human works leads to great frustration with ourselves. Only by realizing the

extent of grace can we become free from this. So many struggle with accepting unfulfilment- coping

with loss, with the fact we didn‘t make as good a job of something as we wanted, be it raising our

kids or the website we work on or the book we write or the room we decorated… And as death

approaches, this sense becomes stronger and more urgent. Young people tend to think that it‘s only

a matter of time before they sort it out and achieve. But that time never comes. It‘s only by

surrendering to grace, abandoning the trust in and glorying in our own works, that we can come to

accept the uncompleted and unfulfilled in our lives, and to smile at those things and know that of

course, I can never ‗do‘ or achieve enough.

The works of the flesh are already manifest (Gal. 5:19)- although they will be manifested again at

the day of judgment (Lk. 8:17; 1 Cor. 3:13). The children of God and of the devil in the ecclesia are

already manifest, in a sense (1 Jn. 3:10). See on Gal. 6:4.

5:20 Gal. 5:20,21 lists anger and divisiveness along with adultery and witchcraft- as all being sins

which will exclude from the Kingdom. Indeed, the list in Gal. 5:19,20 seems to be in progressive

order, as if one sin leads to another, and the final folly is division between brethren. See on 1 Cor.

11:18.

5:22 Faith- The influence of continually hearing God‟s word should be that our words are likewise

truthful and trustworthy. The fact that the Bible as God‘s word is true has implications for our own

truthfulness. Pistos is listed as a fruit of the spirit in Gal. 5; but the idea it can carry is not so much

of faith in the sense of belief, but of faithfulness, loyalty, reliability, utter dependability. If this is

how God‘s words are to us, then this is how we and our words should be to others.

5:22-26 The description of love in 1 Cor. 13, the outline of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22-26,

these are all portraits of the man Christ Jesus. The clearest witness to Him ―therefore consists in

human life in which his image is reproduced‖.

5:24 One of the major themes of Galatians is the need to leave the Law. ―You have been called unto

liberty... for all the Law is fulfilled... this I say then (therefore), Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not

fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit... so that you cannot do the things that

you would‖. It was because of the Law being impossible for sinful man to keep that is was

impossible to obey it as one would like. ―But if you be led of the Spirit, you are not under the Law‖.

This seems to clinch the association between the Law and the flesh (Gal. 5:13–18). The same

contrast between the Spirit and the Law/flesh is seen in Rom. 8:2–3: ―The Law of the Spirit of life

in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the Law (of Moses / sin)

could not do...‖. The Law indirectly encouraged the ―works of the flesh‖ listed in Gal. 5:19–21,

shown in practice by the Jews becoming more morally degenerate than even the Canaanite nations,

and calling forth Paul‘s expose of how renegade Israel were in Romans 1. Gal. 5:24–25 implies that

in the same way as Jesus crucified the Law (Col. 2:14) by His death on the cross, so the early

church should crucify the Law and the passions it generated by its specific denial of so many fleshly

desires: ―They that are Christ‘s have crucified the flesh with the affections (AV mg. ―passions‖) and

lusts‖. This seems to connect with Rom. 7:5: ―When we were in the flesh the motions (same Greek

word, ‗affections‘ as in Gal. 5:24) of sins, which were by the Law, did work in our members‖.

―When we were in the flesh‖ seems to refer to ‗While we were under the Law‘. For Paul implies he

is no longer ‗in the flesh‘, which he was if ‗the flesh‘ only refers to human nature.

5:25 If we have God‘s spirit within us, we will keep in step with His spirit (Gal. 5:25 Gk.- an

allusion to Ezekiel‘s vision of the wheels of the cherubim on earth being in step with the Angel-

cherubim above them). Our spirit bears witness with God‘s Spirit- we know that our way of life is in

404

harmony with Him, our spirit is His, and thereby we know that we are His children and united with

the eternal life and now eternal spirit of His Son (Rom. 8:16). The way of life we live in Christ is an

eternal life, an eternal spirit; in this sense we are living the eternal life, the life we will eternally live.

This is how crucially important it is to be living the truth as a way of life. Go through your life and

see how you can construct this ambience within it.

6:2 If we understand ‗the law of Christ‘ in the same sense as ‗the law of Moses‘ then we have

missed the crucial message that is in Christ; we have merely exchanged one legal code for another.

His is a spirit of grace which specifically, legally demands nothing and yet by the same token

demands our all. And so in all our living and thinking, we must constantly be asking ‗What would

Jesus do? Is this the way of God‘s Spirit? Is this how the law of love teaches me to act? ‘. To live

the life of the Spirit, to construct in daily living an ambience of spiritual life, is therefore a binding

law. Living according to the spirit / mind / example of Jesus will mean that we naturally find the

answers to some of the practical dilemnas which may arise in our lives.

6:2-4 Self-examination brings us face to face with our essential loneliness in a healthy way: ―For if

a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man

prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another‖ (Gal. 6:2-

4). It is possible to have rejoicing in ourselves alone when we know we have a clear conscience

before the Father. But this can only come through being genuinely in touch with oneself; the person

who is subsumed within an organization, who is totally co-dependent rather than an individual

freely standing before the Father… such a person can never reach this level of self-knowledge. The

N.I.V. says: ―Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else‖. We

are treading a terrible tightrope here, between the deadly sin of pride on the one side, and the sin of

devaluing our own God-formed personality on the other. Only a person in touch with him or herself

can have the rejoicing or pride in one‘s clear conscience [cleansed, of course, by grace in Christ] of

which Paul speaks here. Paul seems to have in mind the words of Job when he speaks of how he

will in the very end behold God with his own eyes, ―and not another‖ (Job 19:27).

6:4 Not only are we to perceive the value of others, but of ourselves too. Gal. 5:26; 6:4 RV make the

point that we shouldn‘t be desirous of vainglory, but of ―his glorying in regard of himself alone‖.

Secured in Christ, justified in Him, we can even glory in who we are in His eyes. We can be so sure

of His acceptance of us that there is such a thing as ―the glorying of our hope‖ (Heb. 3:6)- all ours to

explore and experience.

Whilst it may be hard to believe, Gal. 6: 4 says that we can prove / judge our own works, and thus

have rejoicing in ourselves. Although self-examination is fraught with problems, and even our

conscience can be deceptive at times (1 Cor. 4:4), there is a sense in which we can judge / discern

ourselves now. We can judge brethren and find them blameless (1 Tim. 3:10; Tit. 1:6,7)- all the

language of the future judgment (1 Cor. 1:8; Col. 1:22). We cannot personally condemn them, but

we can judge their behaviour against the judgments of God as revealed in the word. Some know the

judgments of God against certain sins, and yet still do them, in the blindness of human nature (Rom.

1:32). Israel chose to be oblivious of what they well knew; there was no (awareness of) God's

judgment in their way of life (Is. 59:8; Jer. 5:4) and therefore they lacked that innate sense of

judgment to come which they ought to have had, as surely as the stork knows the coming time for

her migration (Jer. 8:7). Judas knew in advance of judgment day that he was condemned (Mt. 27:3).

Whilst it may be hard to believe, Gal. 6: 4 says that we can prove / judge our own works, and thus

have rejoicing in ourselves. Although self-examination is fraught with problems, and even our

conscience can be deceptive at times (1 Cor. 4:4), there is a sense in which we can judge / discern

ourselves now.

6:5 By our words we will be justified or condemned. The false prophets were judged according to

their words: "Every man's word shall be his burden" at the day of Babylonian judgment (Jer. 23:36).

405

Gal. 6:5 alludes here in saying that at the judgment, every man shall bear his own burden- i.e., that

of his own words.

6:6 Even though some may be shepherds, they are still sheep; and they are leading others after the

Lord Jesus, ―the chief shepherd‖, not after themselves. And they should remember that Gal. 6:6

requires ―him that is taught in the word‖ to share back his knowledge with his teacher. This is

possibly the meaning behind the enigmatic Eph. 3:10- the converts of the church declare the

wisdom of God to the ‗principalities and powers in the heavenlies‘, phrases elsewhere used about

the eldership of the church. The shepherd is to learn from his sheep- a concept totally out of step

with the concept of leadership in 1st and 21st centuries alike. The flock isn‘t theirs; it is their

Lord‘s. Any who teach others are themselves disciples, learners at the feet of the Master. It is

simply so that some have more ability to organise than others; the Lord spoke of how each believer

is given differing amounts of talent to use in His service. But before God, we are one in Christ.

6:7 Having spoken for six verses concerning our responsibilities for others in the ecclesia, Paul

makes a statement which we would sooner apply to gross immorality than laziness to serve each

other: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit

shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we

shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men..." (Gal. 6:7-

10). Paul's sober warning is in the context of not loving and serving our brethren. To have an

indifferent, irresponsible attitude to them is to sow to the flesh. Each of us, therefore, must live up to

our serious responsibilities for each other if we are to sow to the Spirit.

Knowing the terror of the Lord at the judgment, knowing that Christ will come, Paul sought to use

this to persuade men, including the believers at Corinth, to quit their sloppy attitude to God's Truth.

Properly apprehending the reality of judgment to come makes us see the eye of the tiger, grasp the

real issues of spiritual life, see the real essence of cross carrying Christianity. We will believe that

whatever we sow, that we will reap (Gal. 6:7,8); and we will therefore live accordingly.

6:7,8 Gal.6:7,8 concerning sowing to the flesh is alluding to Eliphaz's description of Job in Job 4:8.

However, the same passage also has connections with Job 13:9, where Job accuses the friends of

mocking God. Gal.6 is saying that those who show themselves to be outwardly wise (v.3), "making

a fair show in the flesh (constraining) you to be circumcised" (v.12), are mocking God. Thus the

sweet-talking Judaizers infiltrating the believers in Galatia correspond to both Job and the friends.

6:10 They belonged to house churches, which were part of the patria of God (Eph. 3:15). They

belonged to another household, a household which they perceived by faith- the household of faith

(Gal. 6:10). No wonder Celsus complained that Christianity led its followers into rebellion against

the heads of households. Doubtless he was exaggerating, but the idea of having another head of

house, another patria , was indeed obnoxious to a slave owning society. This is why the language of

slavery permeates so much of the New Testament letters; for according to Christianity‘s critics, it

was largely a slave, female religion to start with. And of course, the unity between slave women and

free women in the house churches was amazing; it cut across all accepted social boundaries of

separation. The Martyrdom Of Perpetua And Felicitas tells the story of how a Christian mistress

(Perpetua) and a slave girl (Felicitas) are thrown together into the nets to be devoured by wild

animals, standing together as they faced death. This was the kind of unity which converted the

world.

There was to be now the "household of faith" (Gal. 6:10), with people from all the 'other' groups

now to be accepted as 'brother' and 'sister', which meant denying the natural ties to your family in

the way that surrounding society expected- for to them, loyalty must be to family above all else.

Denying this and putting our bonding with Christ and His family first was indeed equivalent to self-

crucifixion (Mk. 8:34).

406

6:11- see on 2 Cor. 12:7.

6:12- see on Gal. 4:30.

6:13 Galatians 6 warns those who think themselves to be something spiritually that they are nothing,

deceiving themselves (v.13), and that by having such an attitude they are sowing to the flesh, and

will reap corruption (v.8). Eliphaz interprets Job's downfall as an example of "they that plow

iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same" (Job 4:8). The conscious connection between these

passages again shows that Job was seen as a type of the Jewish, self-righteous, often Judaist-

influenced, members of the ecclesia (Gal. 6:13).

6:14

The Shame And Glory Of The Cross

His death was so that He might deliver us from this present evil world (Gal. 1:4); because of the

Lord‘s crucifixion, Paul saw himself as crucified unto the world, and the world unto him (Gal.

6:14). The Lord Jesus looked out across the no man‘s land between the stake and the crowd; He

faced the world which crucified Him. We simply cannot side with them. To not separate from them

is to make the cross in vain for us; for He died to deliver us out of this present world. The pull of the

world is insidious; and only sober reflection upon the cross will finally deliver us from it. It‘s a

terrifying thought, that we can make the power of the cross invalid. It really is so, for Paul warned

that preaching the Gospel with wisdom of words would make ―the cross of Christ... of none effect"

(1 Cor. 1:17). The effect of the cross, the power of it to save, is limited in its extent by our manner

of preaching of it. And we can make ―Christ", i.e. His cross, of ―none effect" by trusting to our

works rather than accepting the gracious salvation which He achieved (Gal. 5:4).

The life of self-crucifixion, daily carrying a stake of wood to the place where we will be nailed to it

and left to die a tortuous death…day by day living in the intensity of a criminal‘s ‗last walk‘ to his

death; how radical and how demanding this really is can easily be lost upon us. And it can be

overlooked how totally unacceptable was the idea of dying on a cross in the context of the first

century. In Roman thought, the cross was something shocking; the very word ‗cross‘ was repugnant

to them. It was something only for slaves. Consider the following writings from the period.

- Cicero wrote: ―The very word ‗cross‘ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman

citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these

things or the endurance of them, but… the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman

citizen and a free man… your honours [i.e. Roman citizenship] protect a man from… the terror of

the cross".

- Seneca the Elder in the Controversiae records where a master‘s daughter marries a slave, and she

is described as having become related to cruciarii, ‗the crucified‘. Thus ‗the crucified‘ was used by

metonymy for slaves. The father of the girl is taunted: ―If you want to find your son-in-law‘s

relatives, go to the cross". It is hard for us to appreciate how slaves were seen as less than human in

that society. There was a stigma and revulsion attached to the cross.

- Juvenal in his 6th Satire records how a wife ordered her husband: ―Crucify this slave". ―But what

crime worthy of death has he committed?" asks the husband, ―no delay can be too long when a

man‘s life is at stake". She replies: ―What a fool you are! Do you call a slave a man?".

The sense of shame attached to the cross was also there in Jewish perception of it. Whoever was

hung on a tree was seen as having been cursed by God (Dt. 21:23). Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with

Trypho, records Trypho (who was a Jew) objecting to Christianity: ―We are aware that the Christ

must suffer… but that he had to be crucified, that he had to die a death of such shame and

dishonour- a death cursed by the Law- prove this to us, for we are totally unable to receive it".

Justin Martyr in his Apology further records: ―They say that our madness consists in the fact that we

place a crucified man in second place after the eternal God". The Romans also mocked the idea of

407

following a crucified man. One caricature shows a crucified person with an ass‘s head. The ass was

a symbol of servitude [note how the Lord rode into Jerusalem on an ass]. The caption sarcastically

says: ―Alexamenos worships God".

Yet with this background, ―the preaching of the cross" won many converts in the first century. ―The

Jews require a sign and the Greeks [Gentiles, e.g. Romans] seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ

crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22,23). Paul

exalts that Christ ―became obedient to death- even death on a cross!" (Phil. 2:8 NIV). Those

brethren and sisters must have endured countless taunts, and many times must have reflected about

changing their message. But the historical reality of the crucifixion, the eternal and weighty

importance of the doctrine of the atonement, as we might express it today… this was of itself an

imperative to preach it. We cannot change our message because it is apparently unattractive. The

NT suggests that the cross was not just something shocking and terrible, but a victory, a triumph

over sin and death which should be gloried in and thereby preached to the world in joy and hope

(Gal. 6:14). We may look at the world around us and decide that really, there is no way at all our

message will convert anyone. We are preaching something so radically different from their world-

view. But the preaching of a crucified King and Saviour in the first century was just as radical- and

that world was turned upside down by that message! People are potentially willing to respond, even

though in the stream of faces waiting for transport or passing along a busy street, we might not think

so. It will be our simple and unashamed witness which will be used by the Father to convert them;

we needn‘t worry about making our message acceptable to them. There was nothing acceptable in

the message of the cross in the first century- it was bizarre, repulsive and obnoxious. But the fact

men and women gave their lives to take it throughout the known world shows the power of

conviction which it has. And that same power is in the Gospel which we possess. If we believe it

rather than merely know it, we will do the same with it.

6:16 The fact we are new creations should be the rule by which we live (Gal. 6:16). The reality that

we are new beings means that we have to learn how to live all over again.

6:17 All through his life and witness, Paul was aware of how he had rebelled against his Lord. He

wrote that he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. He seems to be alluding to the practice

of branding runaway slaves who had been caught with the letter F in their forehead, for fugitivus.

His whole thinking was dominated by this awareness that like Jonah he had sought to run, and yet

had by grace been received into his Master‘s service. Paul could conclude by saying that he bore in

his body [perhaps an idiom for his life, cp. the ‗broken body‘ of the Lord we remember] the

stigmata of the Lord Jesus. He was so clearly a slave belonging to the Lord Jesus that it was as if

one could see the marks of the nails in his body. Hence all the connections Paul makes in his letters

between the suffering servant / slave prophecies, and his own experience.

408

EPHESIANS

1:3 He wishes us to be like Him, to have His Spirit. In this sense, through having the spirit of Jesus,

He comes and lives in the hearts of those who accept Him (Rom. 8:1-26; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20).

There is a resultant joy in the heart of the convert after baptism, as a result of the Lord's work (1

Thess. 1:6). To this end, He blesses us with all the varied blessings of His Spirit (Eph. 1:3 Gk.).

1:4 Pre-eminently, our love of the brotherhood will be the basis upon which we find acceptance, and

in this lies the reason why the life of love is a living out of an acceptance before the Lord now. If we

live in love, we are right now holy and blameless before Him (Eph. 1:4). "Before Him" is the

language of judgment day (Mt. 25:32; Lk. 21:36; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 2:14; 1 Jn. 2:28;

Jude 24; Rev. 14:5); and being holy and blameless before Him is exactly how we will be at the

judgment seat (Jude 24). Yet right now, he who lives in love, a love unpretended and unfeigned,

lives in the blamelessness and holiness of his Lord, whose righteousness is imputed to him. Paul so

loved his Thessalonian brethren that he joyed "for your sakes before our God" (1 Thess. 3:9).

"Before our God" is very much the language of judgment day; and he had earlier reflected: "what is

our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at

his coming? For ye are [right now] our glory and joy" (1 Thess. 2:19,20). They were in this life his

joy, as he lived out his life "before our God" and they would be again in the day of judgment.

Not only are paragraph and chapter breaks sometimes misleading, verse breaks can be too. Inserting

punctuation into translation of Hebrew and Greek texts is very difficult. Thus Eph. 1:4,5 in the AV

reads: ―...that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us‖.

Shift the colon and another emphasis is apparent: ―...that we should be holy and without blame

before him: in love having predestinated us‖. When stuck with a ‗difficult‘ verse (and they all are in

some ways!), don‘t be afraid to try re-jigging the punctuation a bit.

1:5 An understanding of predestination helps us towards true humility and appreciation of grace.

This is the very context in which Paul introduces the idea in Romans; he wished his readers to

appreciate grace by reflecting upon how predestination involves something far over and above

anything we could ‗do‘ or ‗be‘ in our own rights. Further, Paul speaks of predestination in Eph.

1:5,6, and says that it is a sign of God‘s grace- and thus we are ―predestinated… to the praise of the

glory of His grace‖. Predestination also brings with it an appreciation of grace, and real praise for it.

Predestination by grace doesn‘t motivate to lethargy and fatalism- if it‘s properly understood. When

the Lord speaks of how we have been chosen, above and beyond any effort on our part, He goes on

to teach that exactly because of this, we have a responsibility to produce fruit, to pray, to love one

another (Jn. 15:16,17). Despite predestination, there are countless thousands of freewill decisions

for us to make each day. Try to bear that in mind some mornings as you wake up. Whatever

situation we‘re in, life takes on an excitement and meaning and challenge. The simple fact of

predestination, of having been chosen by grace, should radically inspire us in every one of those

freewill decisions. The true Biblical idea of predestination mustn‘t be confused with non-Biblical

ones. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc. all believed that they had been elected by the gods,

predestined to be the special race that alone had true connection with the divine… but they assumed

this predestination was because of their natural superiority. Biblical predestination is radically

different- that the weak are chosen and the strong rejected, not because they are smart, beautiful,

hard working, successful, lucky… but exactly because they are weak and just who they are. This is

the grace of true predestination. And it‘s so wonderful that nobody can be passive to it. On this very

basis, Paul urges Euodia and Syntyche to resolve their differences because their names were written

in the book of life (Phil. 4:2,3). That book was written from the foundation of the world, and the fact

our names are written in it is a reference to the concept of predestination. This reality means that in

practice we simply shouldn't be at loggerheads with others who share in that same grace of

predestination!

1:6- see on Lk. 1:28.

409

1:7- see on Acts 20:28.

1:8 Eph. 1:8 speaks of ―the riches of his grace, which He lavished on us‖. God has been extravagant

with His grace. And in dealing with those whom we consider to be hard, spiteful and unreasonable

towards us in the brotherhood, we have the ideal opportunity to reflect such grace. It hurt God, to an

extent we cannot fathom, to lavish that grace upon us in the death of the cross. And of course it

must hurt us to show it to others. In the same way as we seem unable to focus our attention for very

long on the ultimate issues of life, so we find it difficult to believe the extent of God's grace. He is

extravagent with His grace- God ―lavishes‖ grace upon us (Eph. 1:8). The covenant God made with

Abraham was similar in style to covenants made between men at that time; and yet there was a

glaring difference. Abraham was not required to do anything or take upon himself any obligations.

Circumcision [cp. baptism] was to remember that this covenant of grace had been made. It isn‘t part

of the covenant [thus we are under this same new, Abrahamic covenant, but don‘t require

circumcision]. Perhaps this was why Yahweh but not Abraham passed between the pieces, whereas

usually both parties would do so. The promises to Abraham are pure, pure grace

1:9,10 God's great desire is that all His people should be one. Eph. 1:9,10 makes it seem that God's

subsequent desire to unify us and the Angels is a bigger part of His ultimate purpose than we often

recognize: "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure

which he hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather

together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven (Angels) and which are on earth (us)".

Isaiah 48 in describing the fullness of the new creation has the same idea- "Mine hand also hath laid

the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spanned the Heavens: when I call unto them

they stand up together... they are created now and not from the beginning (i. e. a new creation)" (v.

13,7). When the "call" goes forth, Angels and saints will "stand up"-i. e. be glorified- together.

1:10- see on Col. 1:20.

1:11- see on Mt. 25:34.

We are God's portion / inheritance (Dt. 4:20; 9:29; Eph. 1:18), and He is our inheritance (Ps. 16:5,6;

73:26; Lam. 3:22-24; Eph. 1:11 RV); we inherit each other.

1:12 Eph. 1:11 speaks of how we ―have obtained an inheritance‖ through being ―in Christ‖. This is

just another way of expressing the great truth of Gal. 3:27-29- that through baptism into Christ, we

receive the promise of the inheritance promised to Abraham. But Paul continues in Eph. 1:12: ―That

we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in [Gk. ‗into‘- through baptism] Christ‖.

The fact we are in Christ by baptism and thus have the Abrahamic promises leads to praise of God‘s

grace. Yet we will only achieve this if we firmly grasp the real, pointed relevance of the promises to

us; that we who are baptized are each one truly and absolutely in Christ, and the promises apply to

me personally.

1:13 At our baptism we became "in Christ". Through that act we obeyed all the Lord's invitations to

believe "in Him", or as the Greek means, to believe into Him. We believed into Him after we heard

the Gospel, by baptism (Eph. 1:13). We are now connected with the death and resurrection of the

Lord Jesus Christ; we are treated by God as if we are His Son.

1:15

Compare the following passages:

―I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor

night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence, And give him no rest, till he establish,

and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth‖ (Is. 62:6,7)

with

410

―Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease

not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus

Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge

of him‖ (Eph. 1:15-17).

The ideas of praying without ceasing and making mention occur in both passages. Surely Paul had

the Isaiah passage in mind. It seems that he saw the ecclesia as the spiritual Zion. In the same way

as Zion‘s watchmen were exhorted to pray for her without ceasing until the Kingdom is established

there, so Paul prayed for the spiritual growth of his brethren. The implication is surely that once a

certain level of spirituality had been achieved, then the Lord will return to establish His Kingdom.

When the harvest is ripe, then the sickle is put in. Jn. 17:23 speaks of how the church will ―be

perfected into one‖ (RV), as if this process is ongoing and comes to a finality at the Lord‘s return.

This is an urgent imperative to unity amongst us- and yet as these [apparently] ―last days‖ wear on,

we become increasingly disunited. This ought to be a true worry to us.

Paul heard of the spiritual development of the Ephesians (1:15-19), therefore he prayed that God

would grant them more knowledge and understanding (v.16,17). The dynamic in this Divine

confirmation of their freewill effort was God's Spirit power. Paul repeats the prayer in Eph. 3:14-

21: "...be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that... (ye) may be able to

comprehend... to know... to be filled with all the fullness of God". It is thus by God's Spirit word

acting on our "inner man" that this greater comprehension of our glorious calling is achieved. He

tells them later to be "renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4:23), alluding to the Ezekiel

passages which speak not only of Israel making themselves a new heart / spirit / mind, but of God

giving this to them (Ez. 18:11; 36:26), in confirmation of their efforts. There are examples galore of

God acting on the minds of men to give them a certain attitude which they would not otherwise

have had (consider how He gave Saul another heart, or gave Israel favour in the eyes of the

Egyptians so that they lent to them, Ex. 12:36).

1:16 One practical caveat needs to be mentioned in the context of praying for others. It is all too

easy to slip into the habit (and slipping into bad prayer habits surely dogs every prayerful man) of

reeling off a list of names each night, something like "Dear Father, be with David, and please be

with the children, and with Sister Smith, and with Karen, and with...". There's nothing in itself

wrong with this. But over time, it can become a kind of incantation, with us fearful that this evening

we let one of those names slip. Paul writes often that he "makes mention" or 'remembers' his

brethren in regular prayer (Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:2; Philemon 4). The Greek mneia is the

word used in the LXX for the "memorial" of the incense or the meal offering (Lev. 2:2,16; 6:15;

24:7), or the constant fire on the altar (Lev. 6:12,13). That fire, that flour, that incense, had to be

carefully and consciously prepared; it had to be the result of man's labour. And likewise, Paul seems

to be saying, he first of all thought through the cases which he then presented to the Father. This is a

high standard to keep up.

1:17- see on Jn. 6:27.

1:18 Our eyes have been enlightened, now we see (Eph. 1:18; 5:8; Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9). And yet in

many ways we are blind spiritually. We see through a glass "darkly" (Gk. 'enigmatically'; 1 Cor.

13:12). The things of the Spirit are largely enigmas to us. Therefore Paul prays that his Ephesians

would have "the eyes of their understanding" progressively enlightened, even though they had

already been turned from darkness to light (Eph. 1:17,18). The disciples had been turned from

darkness to light, but the Lord rebuked them for their blindness in not expecting His resurrection.

1:20- see on Eph. 3:9,10.

The Jews strongly believed that Satan had authority over the old / current age. Their writings speak

of the rulers, powers, authorities, dominions etc. of this present age as all being within the supposed

system of Satan and his various demons / Angels in Heaven. In Eph. 1:20–22 Paul says that Christ

411

is now ―above every ruler (archê), authority (exousia), power (dunamis) and dominion (kuriotês)

and any name that can be named not only in this age but the age to come... All things have been put

in subjection under his feet‖. Paul‘s teaching that no spiritual being can oppose the exalted Christ.

He‘s using the very terms used in the Jewish writings for the rulers, powers etc. of Satan‘s supposed

system. So when in 2 Cor. 4:4 Paul speaks of Satan as ―the god of this age‖, he‘s not necessarily

claiming that this is now the case – rather is he merely quoting from the well known Jewish belief

about this.

1:22 The body of Christ, the ecclesia, is one form of the personal self-revelation of the person of the

Lord Jesus. We don‘t only and solely receive His self-revelation through accepting dogma or

doctrine. It comes to us also through the way He mediates His personality to us, His self-revelation,

through His body. His fullness is to be found in the church, His body- He fills ―all [believers /

members of the church] in all‖ (Eph. 1:22,23). I take this to mean that the fullness of His personal

character, person, spirit, truth… is to be found in His body on earth, i.e. the community of believers.

Each of them manifest a different aspect of Him. Thus ―you may all [not just the elders] be prophets

in turn [i.e. not just one ‗pastor‘ doing all the teaching] so that all may get knowledge and comfort‖

(1 Cor. 14:31 BBE). This is the Biblical ―unity of the spirit‖- whereby the body of Jesus reveals

Him consistently, as a unity, thus binding together all who share that same one spirit of Christ. This

is the way to unity- not enforcing intellectual assent to dogmatic propositions.

All things were put under the Lord‘s feet because of His exaltation (Eph. 1:22); but now we see not

yet all things put under Him (Heb. 2:8; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). The ―all things‖ matches with Col. 1:18

speaking of the Lord being placed over the church. We are the ―all things‖. The great commission

has the same thought sequence- because of the Lord‘s exaltation, therefore we must go and tell all

men and bring them into subjection to the exalted Christ. In prospect His body is ―all in all‖ (Eph.

1:23), but the ―all in all‖ phase will only be realized in practice at the end of the Millennium (1 Cor.

15:28). It is for us to grasp the height of His exaltation and the fact that it means that potentially, all

men, all of existence, is under Him. And then we respond to this by going out and seeking to bring

all men under Him.

1:23 There is a clear connection between this idea of the fullness of God, and Ex. 34:6, where God

proclaims His Name to be "Yahweh, a God full of compassion", grace and His other characteristics

(see R.V.). So by bearing God's Name, we have His fullness counted to us. As Christ had the

fullness of God dwelling in Him in a bodily form (Col. 2:9), so the church, as the body of Christ, "is

(Christ's) body, the fullness of him (God) that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22,23). So you see the

intensity of our unity; we are the very body of Christ, He exists in and through us (although of

course He still has a separate personality). Likewise, the fullness of God is in Christ and thereby in

us. We are not just one part of God's interest, our salvation is not just one of His many hobbies, as it

were. He only has one beloved Son; He was sent to this earth for our salvation. The fullness of God,

even though we scarcely begin to comprehend it, dwelt fully in Christ, and is counted to us. We

really should have a sense of wonder, real wonder, at the greatness of our calling. See on Eph. 3:19.

Eph.1:23 describes the church as "His body, the fullness of Him (God?) that filleth all in all". Thus

we are "the" fullness of God and Christ. "We beheld His glory..full of grace and truth (alluding to

Ex. 34).. and of His fullness have all we received" (John 1:14,16). The word "filleth" in Eph.1:23 is

the same as 'complete' in Col.2:9,10: "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And

ye are complete in Him". Christ is filled with God's fullness of the righteous attributes of glory, and

in Christ we are also filled. Seeing that we are the body of Christ it follows that the ecclesia in toto

manifest the fulness of Christ's and therefore God's glory, through each of us manifesting a slightly

different aspect of God's glorious character to perfection. Thus Peter reasons that the quicker the

ecclesia spiritually develops, manifesting those attributes, the earlier Christ can return (2 Pet.3:11-

15). See on Phil. 1:11.

412

The body of Christ is His "fullness" through which He fills us all (Eph. 1:23). I take this to mean

that each member of the body of Christ manifests something unique about Jesus, so that between us,

we show all of Christ to the world- e.g. one may reveal His patience, another His zeal, etc. By

limiting our definition of the body of Christ, we limit our perception and experience of Him; and

thus we limit the extent we are filled with His fullness if we refuse to accept that which every

member of the body supplies to us in order that we might grow up in Him (Eph. 4:16).

God will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), through the full expression of His Name. But Eph. 1:23 says

that right now, all the fullness of God fills "all in all" in the church; in other words we should now

be experiencing something of that total unity which will then be physically manifest throughout all

creation.

2 Ephesians 2 has many allusions to the LXX of Isaiah: :1= 57:4; :12 " no hope"= 56:10; :2 =57:5;

:14=57:19; :5 =57:10 (RV) ;:19 = 56:1; :6 = 57:15; :21 = 56:7; :12 = 56:7; :19 =56:6 (RV) ;:22 =

57:15.

2:2 Ephesians 2:2 speaks of ―the prince of the power of the air‖. This clearly alludes to the

mythological concepts of Zoroaster – the kind of thing which Paul‘s readers once believed. Paul

says that they once lived under ―the prince of the power of the air‖. In the same verse, Paul defines

this as ―the spirit (attitude of mind) that… works‖ in the natural man. Previously they had believed

in the pagan concept of a heavenly spirit–prince; now Paul makes the point that actually the power

which they were formally subject to was that of their own evil mind. Thus the pagan idea is alluded

to and spoken of, without specifically rebuking it, whilst showing the truth concerning sin.

The Prince of the Air Comments

1. The words ―Satan‖ and ―Devil‖ do not occur here.

2. ―Walking‖, v. 2, (i.e. living) according to the prince of the power of the air, is defined in v. 3 as

living according to the lust of our fleshly mind. The ―lusts of our flesh‖ come from within us (Mk.

7:21–23; James 1:14) not from anything outside of us.

3. ―The power of the air‖ is clearly a figurative expression – ―the prince‖ probably is also.

4. ―The prince‖ is ―the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience‖. The spirit frequently

refers to an attitude of mind (e.g. Dt. 2:30; Prov. 25:28; Is. 54:6; 61:3; Ez. 18:31; Mk.14:38; Lk.

2:40; 2 Cor. 2:13; 12:18; Eph. 4:23). This is confirmed by v. 3 – such peoples‘ lives are controlled

by ―fulfilling the lusts of our flesh (which come from our heart – James 1:14), fulfilling the desires

of the flesh and of the mind‖. Fleshly people do not allow their lives to be controlled by a physical

―prince‖ outside of them, but by following their fleshly desires which are internal to their minds. A

physical being cannot exist as a ―spirit‖ in the sense of an intangible essence. A spirit does not have

flesh and bones, i.e. a physical body (Lk. 24:39); therefore because ―the prince‖ is a ―spirit‖, this

must be a figurative expression, rather than referring to a physical being. The ―spirit‖ or attitude of

mind is a figurative prince, as sin is a figurative paymaster (Rom. 6:23).

5. This passage (and v. 11) speaks of their former Gentile lives. 1 Pet. 4:3 speaks of life before

conversion as: ―In the time past we wrought the will of the Gentiles… we walked in lusts‖. Their

own flesh was their ―prince‖. Thus walking according to the prince of the air (v.2) is parallel with

walking in the flesh (v. 11). The more common antithesis to walking in spirit is walking after the

flesh – here termed ―the course of this world‖.

413

6. George Lamsa, a native speaker of Aramaic, understands ―the prince of the power of the air‖ to

be the dynamic equivalent of the Arabic / Aramaic resh shultana, which he claims would‘ve been

understood as meaning simply ‗the head of the government‘, with no intended reference to the

literal air (1)

.

7. Athanasius argued that the death of Jesus cleansed the air where the demons / fallen angels now

live, and therefore physically opened up a way for [supposed] immortal souls to find a way into

Heaven (2)

. Not only was all this unBiblical, it reflects a literalism which reduces God to a being

hopelessly bound by physicality. In short, this kind of thinking arose from a basic lack of faith in

God as the Almighty, who doesn‘t need to build bridges over problems which men have created for

Him in their own minds. It should be noted that the idea of saying ―Bless you!‖ when someone

sneezes derives from Athanasius‘ idea that demons can become so small that they enter a person

from the literal air. This is what happens if we insist that the Devil was thrown out of heaven and

some of his angels are still in the literal air – it‘s literalism gone wrong.

Suggested Explanations

1. Verse 1 says that ―you‖ – the faithful at Ephesus – were dead in sins. Verses 2 and 3 then express

the reason for this in four parallel ways:

(a) ―...you walked according to the course of this world‖

(b) ―...according to the prince of the power of the air‖

(c) ―...the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience‖

(d) ―...were by nature the children of wrath‖.

The ―whole world lays in wickedness (1 Jn. 5:19). ―The children of disobedience‖ show this by

their lives ―fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind‖ (vv. 1,3). Thus ―the prince of the

power of the air‖ is our evil, fleshly mind, i.e. the real Devil.

2. There are many links between Ephesians and Colossians. One of the clearest is between these

verses and Colossians 3:3–7. Colossians 3:3 speaks of us having died to sin as Ephesians 2:1 does.

Verses 5–7 amplify what are ―the lusts of the flesh‖ which ―the children of disobedience‖ fulfil:

―Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate

affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things‘ sake the wrath

of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which you also walked some time, when you

walked in them‖. These things of v. 5 are ―the works of the flesh‖ mentioned in Galatians 5:19.

These things come from within us, not from anything outside (Mk. 7:21–23). Therefore the prince

of the power of the air, which causes these things, is again defined as our evil desires.

3. ―The air‖ normally refers to the literal air around us which we breathe. It is a different word to

that translated ―air‘ in the sense of the heavens, e.g. ―the birds of the air‖ (Lk. 9:58). The seven

angels of Revelation 16 pour out their vials on people in various parts of the earth in preparation for

the establishment of God‘s Kingdom. ―The seventh angel poured out his vial into the air‖ (Rev.

16:17) because his work affected the whole of the earth; it is as a result of this vial that the Kingdom

of God is established on the earth and the kingdoms of men are ended. Thus the ―power of the air‖

is a phrase which figuratively refers to a power which has influence over the people of the whole

earth – and the power of sin, the fleshly mind, is worldwide.

Notes (1) George Lamsa, New Testament Light (San Francisco Harper & Row) p. 248.

(2) See Nathan K. Ng, The Spirituality of Athanasius (Bern: Lang, 2001).

414

2:3 We don‘t sense enough, perhaps, that this world is not just passively disinterested in God. All

outside of Christ are active enemies towards Him, subjects of God‘s wrath (Eph. 2:3,15). This isn‘t

how we tend to see the world around us. But to the first century believer, it was clearly so. The

greatness of the gulf that divides was clearly felt. Our world is (overall) more tolerant than it has

ever been; but let‘s not forget that the ruling powers are ‗satan‘, an embodiment of the flesh. All

around is subtly articulated enmity against true spirituality and the cause of Christ. The more we see

that, the more we will realise how close we are to each other who are the other side of the great

divide, ―in Christ‖ along with us. What differences of emphasis and personality there may be

between us we will more naturally overlook.

The world is therefore seen by God as actively sinful. For the man who does not accept salvation in

Christ, "the wrath of God abideth on him" (Jn. 3:36)- it isn't lifted. We are therefore subject to the

wrath of God until baptism (Eph. 2:3). It doesn't seem or feel like this. And yet God experiences this

sense of anger with sin, albeit unexpressed to human eyes.

2:5 We who were dead in sins were "quickened together with Christ" (Eph. 2:5). If we believe in

Christ Jesus' resurrection, we will therefore repent, confess our sins and know His forgiveness. Thus

believing in His raising and making confession of sin are bracketed together in Rom. 10:9,10, as

both being essential in gaining salvation.

2:6 We died, rose and in a spiritual sense even ascended with Him to heavenly places in Him, and

even sit with Him there (Eph. 2:6).

Our difficulty in believing ‗we will be there‘ is perhaps related to our difficulty in believing that in

prospect, we ‗are there‘ right now, through being ―in Christ‖. This most basic truth, that we are ―in

Christ‖ through baptism, carries with it very challenging implications. We are well familiar with

Paul‘s reasoning in Romans 6, that through being immersed in water at baptism, we share in the

Lord‘s death and resurrection. As He rose from the dead, so we rise from the waters of baptism. But

what happened to Him next? He ascended to Heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of

God in glory. And each of those stages is true of us right now. Let Paul explain in Eph. 2:6: ―He

hath raised us up together [Strong: ‗to rouse [from death] in company with‘], and made us sit

together [i.e. Christ and us] in heavenly places in Christ‖. We are now in ‗the heavenlies‘; and not

only so, but we sit together there with Christ. And He now sits upon His throne of glory. Even now

we in a sense sit with Him in His Heavenly throne, even though in another sense this is a future

thing we await (Lk. 22:30; Rev. 3:21). No wonder Paul goes on to make a profound comment:

―That in the ages to come [the aions of future eternity], He might show [Gk.- to indicate by words or

act] the exceeding riches of his grace [which was shown through] his kindness toward us through

Christ‖. Throughout the ages of eternity, God will demonstrate to others [the mortal population of

the Millennium, and perhaps other future creations] how pure and wonderful His grace was to us in

the few brief years of this life- in that, He will demonstrate, He counted us right now in our

mortality as having resurrected, ascended to Heaven, and reigning / sitting with Christ in glory. The

wonder of what we are experiencing now, the height of our present position, is something that will

be marvelled at throughout eternity as an expression of God‘s grace and kindness. And we will be

the living witnesses to it. And we can start that witness right now.

So often does Paul speak of life "in Christ". We become "in Christ" by entering into the body of

Christ by baptism; yet the "body of Christ" refers to the body of believers. A fair case can be made

for interpreting Paul's phrase "in Christ" as very often having some reference to life in the

community of believers. "In Christ" appears to be often a shorthand way of saying "in the body of

Christ". It's because we are of "the same body" that we are sharers in all that is "in Christ" -

whatever is true of Him becomes true of us. If He is the seed of Abraham, then so we are we, etc.

(Eph. 3:6; Gal. 3:27-29). Salvation was "given us in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1:9) as a community, just

as Israel were saved as a body, "the body of Moses", when they were baptized at the Red Sea. This

415

is why we usually read about "you" plural as being "in Christ", rather than of an individual alone

being "in Christ". We were created "in Christ" (Eph. 2:10); "all you that are in Christ" (1 Pet. 5:14);

you are now all made near "in Christ" (Eph. 2:13); we are in heavenly places "together... in Christ"

(Eph. 2:6); all God's children are gathered together in one "in Christ" (Eph. 1:10; Gal. 3:28). God's

whole purpose is "in Christ" (Eph. 3:11); His plan to save us was through our joining a community,

the body of Christ, headed up in the person of Jesus. It can't really be so, therefore, that a believer

can live "in Christ" with no association with the rest of the body of Christ. This is how important

fellowship is

2:7 Just as God must‘ve ‗thought out‘ His wonderful plan of lavishing grace upon us [for ‗the word‘

existed first and then ‗became flesh‘], we too will need to take time to think out our plans for

showing grace and the ‗Wow!‘ factor to others. Eph. 2:5-8 speaks of God working with us now, so

that He can lavish His grace upon us for eternity. This is what He is all about. And it‘s what we

should be all about; taking a Divine joy in forgiving, being generous, caring, showing grace.

2:8 Time and again, faith and works are bracketted together. Abraham was justified by faith, Paul

argues in Romans; and by works, says James. Even within Genesis, his faith was counted for

righteousness in Gen. 15:6; but Gen. 22:15-18 stress that because he had "done this thing" and been

obedient, thereby was he justified. The Centurion meekly said to the Lord: ―I am not worthy...

neither thought I myself worthy"; but his faith, not his humility [as we might have expected] was

commended by the Lord. That faith brought forth humility; just as John's letters see faith and love as

parallel. The woman who washed the Lord's feet was likewise commended for her 'faith', although

her actions were surely acts of devotion. But the Lord's analysis cut through to the essence that lay

behind them: faith. There is a beauty to all this, in that salvation is by faith that it might be by grace

(Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8). And therefore Hab. 2:4 says that living by faith is the antithesis of being

proud. The life of faith, trusting thereby in grace, is a life of humility. All the fruits of the Spirit

thereby come together. In this sense, salvation is not by works. But if we can comprehend

something of the purity of that grace, of God's willingness to save us regardless of our works; then

we will believe it. And if we believe it, we will live a life of active and humble working for the

Lord, not that we might be saved, but in thankful faith and gratitude for the magnitude of our

experience of a grace, the height and depth of which, unfathomed, no man knows. We will "live",

i.e. work through life, by faith (Hab. 2:4). If we truly accept God‘s ways, then we will walk in them;

to not walk in them is to reject them (Ez. 5:6). This ultimately is the importance of doctrine.

2:11 The first century unity between Jew and Gentile must have been especially impressive. Philo

records of Jamnia: ―There lived a mixed population, the majority of them Jews but the rest a number

of foreigners who had nested there as vermin from neighbouring territories‖. And there are many

other such references to the bitter hatred between them. This ―enmity‖ between them was taken

away for those who were in Christ (Eph. 2:11; Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28). It must have made a startling

and arresting witness. And yet sadly, it didn‘t continue; the old tensions and feelings rent apart that

unity.

2:12 How hard it would be for Roman citizens, or those who aspired to it, to realize that the highest

honour was to be part of ―the commonwealth of Israel‖ (Eph. 2:12), that pokey, undeveloped,

despised corner of the great Roman empire. And the call of Christ to middle class 21st century

citizens is just as radical.

2:14 The offerer put his hand on the head of the animal, thereby associating himself with it. In a

sense, the animal therefore represented the offerer. But it had to be "without blemish" (Lev. 3:1),

and to produce a "sweet savour" when burnt (Lev. 3:16). But how are we to offer ourselves as an

unblemished sacrifice? We are surely each aware of our desperate sinfulness. The answer is in the

fact that the language of the peace offering sacrifice is applied to Jesus. "He is our peace" (Eph.

2:14), our peace offering by metonymy (in the same way as Christ was made ―sin" for us, i.e. a sin

offering). He is the unblemished animal (1 Pet. 1:19), and if we are in Christ, we too will be counted

416

as being without spot and blemish (Eph. 5:27). We ought to know whether we are in Christ. If we

are, we will be seen by God as just as pure as He is. See on Eph. 5:2.

2:15- see on Lk. 11:22; Heb. 2:14.

Paul uses the fact that we are all "in Christ" as the basis of His appeal for true unity amongst the

believers- with all the patience, forbearing etc. which this involves. By baptism into Christ, we are

baptized into the same body of Christ as many others (Rom. 12:5). Therefore we "sit together... in

Christ" (Eph. 2:6; 1:10). He has made in Himself one new man, so making peace between all those

in Him (Eph. 2:15). This is why division between those in Christ is ultimately an impossibility.

Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:10).

The body of Christ is Christ; the members of that body between them reflect every aspect of the

Lord Jesus (Eph. 2:15,16). We may each be given a different aspect to reflect, and groups of

believers in different historical periods may have been focused on different aspects, but the end

result is that at the second coming, the body of believers will have reflected Christ fully.

We were redeemed in one body by the cross; and therefore, Paul reasons, we are "fellowcitizens

with [all] the saints, and of [all] the household of God... in whom all the building fitly framed

together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an

habitation of God" (Eph. 2:16-22). Christ died for all of us in the one body, and therefore we who

benefit from this are built up together into a temple in which God will eternally dwell. To refuse

fellowship to other stones of the temple is surely a denial that they are part of that one body which

was redeemed by the cross. He died to make us all one, to abolish all that humanly might keep us

apart, "for to make in himself one new man, so making peace" (Eph. 2:13-15). To uphold division

and disharmony within the "one new man" is well nigh a blasphemy against the body and blood of

the Lord. From the Lord's pierced side came His bride, after the pattern of Eve from Adam, through

the blood (memorial meeting?) and water (baptism?). The creation of the one body was a direct

result of His death. The Greek word for "fellowship", koinonia, is used outside the New Testament

to refer to peoples' joint sharing of a common property. We are "in fellowship" with each other by

reason of our relation to a greater whole in which we have a part. And that 'property', the greater

whole, is the person and work of the Lord Jesus- for our fellowship is "in Him". This background of

the word shows that it's inappropriate to claim to have 'withdrawn fellowship' from anyone who is

in Christ. They are joint sharers in Christ just as much as we are- so we cannot tell them that they

don't share koinonia with us. To say that is to judge either them or ourselves to be not sharing in

Christ- and according to the Lord's plain teaching, any such judgment will lead to our

condemnation. It is the Lord's body, His work, and He invites who He wishes to have koinonia in

Him. It's not for us to claim that we have withdrawn fellowship from anyone who has koinonia in

Him.

2:16 Reconcilliation with our separated brethren can be achieved; because potentially the enmity is

slain, we are already reconciled in one body by the cross (Eph. 2:16). It‘s for us to live this out in

practice. We can move away from the tribal, jungle mentality that ‗my enemy‘s friend is my

enemy‘- if we see and believe how God loves them too as His dear children.

The Lord Jesus reconciled all true believers unto God "in one body by the cross" (Eph. 2:16). All

who are reconciled by the Lord's sacrifice are therefore in the one body, and therefore we have a

duty to fellowship with others in the one body. If we refuse to do this, we in some way attempt to

nullify the aim of the cross. He died in the way that He did in order that the love which He had

showed might be manifested between us (Jn. 17:26). To break apart the body is to undo the work of

the cross.

2:17 He could remind the Ephesians that Christ personally ―came and preached peace to you‖ after

His resurrection (Eph. 2:17 RV), when it was in fact Paul who did this, motivated as he was by the

resurrection of Christ.

417

2:19 The Romans allowed the existence of the autonomous politaea, the city-state, so long as within

its religion it featured the worship of the Emperor. And yet the NT writers speak of the ecclesia as a

city which is independent, defiantly devoted to the worship of the one and only true God (Eph. 2:19;

3:20; Heb. 12:22; 13:14; Rev. 21). The writers must have nervously penned those inspired words,

knowing the problems it would create. The Spirit of God could have chosen not to so directly

challenge this world; and yet there is a chasmic difference between the community of God and the

surrounding world, which the New Testament unashamedly triumphs in. The whole basis of this

radical separation is the fact that Christ died for us. He died to unite us who believe in what the NT

terms ―the unity‖, without seeking to further define it (Jn. 11:52; 17:23; Eph. 1:10; 2:14; 4:3). We

were reconciled to each other as well as to God ―in one body by the cross‖ (Eph. 2:16). His death

unites us in that standing before His cross, all our pettiness disappears, and we are impressed again

with the reality that if He so laid down His life for us, so we must lay down our lives for the

brethren (1 Jn. 3:16). It really and truly is a case of one for all, and all for one.

2:21 Solomon built the temple of stone already prepared (1 Kings 6:7); Christ is the builder of the

spiritual temple, in which the stones should fit together without strife (Eph. 2:21 alludes to 1 Kings

6:7).

3:1 Understanding the way Paul breaks off into another theme and then resumes is the key to

understanding some of the more difficult passages in his writings:" Whom God hath set forth to be a

propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare [his righteousness for the remission of sins that are

past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say] at this time his righteousness" (Rom.

3:25,26). "For this cause I, Paul [the prisoner of Jesus Christ... there is a parenthesis of 13 verses,

then he resumes: For this cause] I bow my knees" (Eph. 3:1,14). "But if I live in the flesh [this is the

fruit of my labour...nevertheless to abide in the flesh] (this) is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:22-24).

3:2- See on Eph. 4:7.

3:3 God‘s ways are described as a secret, a mystery; the Hebrew word used in this connection

means ‗A confidential plan revealed to intimate friends‘; and yet they are revealed to the true

believers (Am. 3:7-8; Jer. 23: 18,22 AV mg.; Ps. 25:14; Eph. 3:3-6). Therefore the congregation of

true believers is called ―the secret assembly of the saints‖(Ps. 89:7 Heb.).

3:7 In Ephesians he coins a word to emphasise his humble status in contrast to the honour of being a

preacher: ―To me, who am the very least (elachistotero) of all the saints, is this grace given, to

preach to the Gentiles‖ (Eph. 3:7). He was a preacher despite the fact he was chief of sinners (1

Tim. 1:15); only through mercy / forgiveness had he received the commission he had (2 Cor. 4:1).

3:8- see on 1 Tim. 1:16.

Paul felt he was less than the least" of all saints, that he would be the least in the Kingdom (Eph.

3:8). He uses a closely related word to that used by John when he spoke of how he must "decrease"

(Jn. 3:30). It was as if he felt like John at his most 'decreased', in prison at Machaerus, fearing death;

and remember that Paul wrote Ephesians from prison too. But John was weak in prison; he doubted

(momentarily) whether Jesus was the Messiah, "him that should come" (Lk. 7:19). Yet Paul seems

to allude to this when he says that "he that shall come will come" (Heb. 10:37)- as if to say 'John,

my hero, you had your weak moments too, but I've tried to learn the lesson from them'.

3:9 All men- see on Mt. 20:27.

3:9,10 It even appears that the Angels learn and increase their knowledge from watching our

response to what knowledge they have already revealed to us. "Principalities and powers" is a

phrase apposite to the Angels and it is clearly used regarding the Angels who gave the Law in Col

2:15. Eph. 3:9,10 makes the amazing statement: "To make all (both Angels and Christians- A. V.

"Men" is not in the original) see what is the fellowship of the mystery (that both Jews and Gentiles

can be saved), which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God (and therefore from the

418

Angels too)… to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be

made known by the ecclesia the manifold wisdom of God". We share the heavenlies with the

Angels- and in any case, why cannot 'the heavenlies' refer to literal Heaven also in a sense? As

Christ was resurrected and ascended to literal Heaven, the Heavenlies of Eph. 1:20, so we are

baptized and spiritually ascend to Heaven straight afterwards (Eph. 1:20). The principalities and

powers to whom the mystery was made known cannot be the human rulers of the world- 1 Cor.

2:7,8,14 are conclusive on this score: "We speak the wisdom of God (cp. Eph. 1 "the manifold

wisdom of God") in a mystery (cp. "the mystery… which hath been hid" in Eph. 1)… which none of

the princes of this world knew (principalities and powers!)… the natural man (i. e. the princes of

this world) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (the "mystery" of v. 7), for they are

foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned". Because Angels

control world rulers, "principalities and powers" can refer both to them and the Angels behind them.

3:10- see on Gal. 6:6.

"(God‘s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made

known" (Eph. 3:10). The church is the body of Christ; He is manifest only through us. We are Him,

in that sense. Our bodies are members of His body (1 Cor. 6:15). All that we do, in word and deed,

is in the Name of the Lord Jesus- i.e. as representing Him whose Name we called upon ourselves in

baptism (Col. 3:17). We are the words of His epistle to both the world and the brotherhood; He has

no other face or legs or arms than us (2 Cor. 3:3). We can thereby limit Him.

3:11 The unity in Christ, this fellowship between the redeemed which the cross enabled, had been

God's original intention. The mystery of His will, His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,

was that "in the dispensation of the fullness of time he might gather together all things in Christ"

(Eph. 1:10). Thus the unity of the redeemed is not just an incidental product of our redemption and

unity in Christ; it was the essential intention and goal of God from the beginning of the world, and

was only revealed through the unity achieved by the cross (Eph. 3:9,10). This was His "eternal

purpose" (Eph. 3:11). These passages in Ephesians need meditation; for it is easy to underestimate

the tremendous emphasis given to how the mysterious unity of the body of believers, together

glorifying His Name, was so fundamentally and eternally God's main purpose. And so Paul

marvelled that he had been chosen to plainly reveal this, God's finest and most essential mystery, to

all men; for it was not revealed at all in the OT, nor even (at least, not directly) by the Lord Jesus.

And we may likewise marvel that we have a living part in it.

3:12 The ―boldness‖ with which we come before the ―throne of grace‖ right now, is the ―boldness‖

with which we will come before that same throne at the final day of judgment (Heb. 4:16; Eph. 3:12

cp. 1 Jn. 4:17).

3:13- see on Lk. 18:1.

3:14- see on Eph. 1:15.

3:15 Paul chooses to use the word patria to describe the new ―family in heaven and earth‖ to which

we belong in Christ (Eph. 3:15). The word patria is defined by Strong as meaning ―a group of

families‖ that comprise a nation [s.w. Acts 3:25 ―all kindreds of the earth‖]. The various family

units / house churches comprised the overall body of Christ, the nation of the new Israel. Eph. 3:15

takes on a new meaning in the light of the house-church nature of early Christianity. God is the

pater [father- the head of the house] from whom every home [patria] in heaven and on earth is

named‖. We‘re invited to see God as a family God, with us as ―the household of God‖ (Eph. 2:19;

3:15). See on Acts 8:3; Col. 1:20.

To be aware of who Yahweh is, of the characteristics outlined in Ex. 34:5-7 that comprise His

Name… this must surely affect our behaviour, seeing we bear that Name. It is an understanding of

the Name that inspires our faith in forgiveness. "Though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it

for thy name's sake: for our backslidings are many" (Jer. 14:7,9,21). The Name is called upon us in

419

baptism (Jer. 14:9 = Eph. 3:15), and this is why we urge men to be baptized into the Name to wash

away their sins. See on Heb. 13:15.

3:17- see on Lk. 6:48.

If we are ―rooted and grounded in love‖, then we come to appreciate yet more ―the love of Christ‖

(Eph. 3:17,18).

3:18 We cannot sit passively before the cross of the Lord. That ―love of Christ" there passes our

human knowledge, and yet our hearts can be opened, as Paul prayed, that we might know the length,

breadth and height of it. The crucified Son of God was the full representation of God. The love of

Christ was shown in His cross; and through the Spirit's enlightenment we can know the height,

length, breadth of that love (Eph. 3:18,19). But this passage in Ephesians is building on Job 11:7-9:

"Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is high

as heaven, what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is

longer than the earth and broader than the sea". The purpose of the connection is to show that

through appreciating the love of Christ, unknowable to the unenlightened mind, we see the

Almighty unto perfection, in a way which the Old Testament believers were unable to do. It was as

high as Heaven, and what could they do? And yet it must be confessed that we do not in practice

attain to such fullness of knowledge and vision. We look to the Kingdom, one of the excellencies of

which will be the full grasp of the Almighty unto perfection, as manifest in the death of His Son. All

we now know is that that cross was the fullness of God, it was "the Almighty unto perfection‖. But

then, we shall know, we shall find it out. And yet, paradoxically, in some sense even now we can

know ―the love of Christ" [a phrase often used about the cross] that passes human knowledge.

Speaking of His upcoming death, the Lord warned that where he was going, the disciples could not

then follow; but they would, afterwards. This doesn‘t necessarily mean they too were to die the

death of the cross. Rather could it mean that they later would enter into what His death really meant;

then they would see with some understanding, rather than run away from the vision of the cross.

And for us, one of the Kingdom‘s riches will likewise be that we shall then understand that final

climactic act the more fully. Yet we begin that discovery now.

God has more spiritual culture, for want of a better way of putting it, than to describe the love of

Christ just with a string of superlative adjectives. Paul prayed that his Ephesians would be

strengthened by the Spirit's working in the inner man, so that they would "be strong to apprehend

with all saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ,

which passeth knowledge" (Eph. 3:18,19 RV). There is a paradox here; to know something that

can't be known, that passes knowledge. We can only know that love by God working on our inner

man, so that we realize the experience we have of the love of Christ, and by seeing it manifested in

others.

3:19 It is surely apparent that it would be pointless to pray for our brethren if in fact those prayers

have no power at all, and if ultimately we are all responsible for our own spiritual path. There is in

all this an incredible and most urgent imperative. This is why Paul bowed his knees in prayer for the

Ephesians, knowing that his words could really increase and enrich the quality of their relationship

with God, if not their very salvation (Eph. 3:14-19). If my prayers can influence your eternal

destiny, if they can lead you from condemnation to the eternity of God‘s Kingdom: then I must, if I

have any gram of love and care within me, dedicate myself to prayer for you. And you, likewise, for

me. Prayer for others‘ spiritual well-being becomes no longer something which is ‗tacked on‘ to our

tired, repetitious evening prayers.

All the fullness of God dwelt in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9); and of his fullness have all we received"

(Jn. 1:16). God's fullness, the full extent of His character, dwelt in Christ, and through His Name

which speaks fully of that character, that fullness of Christ is reckoned to us. And so, in line with all

this, Eph. 3:19 makes the amazing statement. And it is amazing. We can now ―be filled with all the

420

fullness of God". Let's underline that, really underline it, in our hearts. We can be filled with all the

fullness of God. Filled with all the fullness of God's character. See on Eph. 1:23.

3:20 Answers to prayer are described as ―great and mighty things, which you know not‖ (Jer. 33:3)-

i.e. the very nature of answered prayer is that it is above all we ask or think (Eph. 3:20). It leads to a

sense of wonderment with this God with whom we are in relationship. And answered prayer is

indeed part and parcel of a living relationship with the Father and Son.

4:3- see on Jn. 17:23.

4:4 The order of things in the list of essential doctrines in Eph. 4:4-6 is marvellous: "One body" (us)

comes first, and "One God" comes last. Behold here the humility of God.

4:5 It is possible to discern within the NT letters the beginnings of a body of teaching about moral

behaviour. The same outline themes are discernible in Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter and James:

Theme Colossians Ephesians James 1 Peter

The new birth [baptism] 2:12 4:4-6 1:18 1:23

The things of the old life that must be left

behind 3:9 4:22 1:21 2:1

The image of God and Jesus; the new life

that must be put on 1:19 4:24 1:18 2:21

The theme of submission to Jesus as Lord

of our lives 3:18 5:22 4:7

2:13;

5:19

Exhortation to stand strong against

temptation / the ‗devil‘ 4:12 6:11 4:7 5:8,9

Watch and pray, endure to the end 4:2 6:18 5:16 4:7

4:7 When Paul speaks of the stewardship of God‘s grace given to him (Eph. 3:2 RVmg.), he is

alluding to the parable of the talents (see on Mt. 25:15). He saw the talents as the amount of grace

shown, and for him, he knew this to amount to many talents; and he invested them, in response,

through the preaching of the Gospel. And he carries on the allusion in Eph. 4:7, speaking of how

unto every one of us Christ has given a gift, namely, grace.

4:8- see on 1 Cor. 15:28.

4:10 Paul's description of Christ 'ascending up far above all heavens' (Eph. 4:10) seems to be rooted

in his vivid re-living and imagining of the scene in Lk. 24:51, where the record says that Christ was

"parted from them, and carried up".

The risen Lord has filled "all things" with His spirituality, "the whole universe", i.e. the believers

(Eph. 3:19; 4:10 NIV). This is based on God's attitude in the OT; that Israel were His people, His

'world', and the other nations were "not a people"; effectively, they weren't people, in God's eyes

(Dt. 32:21). Is this Biblical evidence for a social Gospel? These words are true of all those who are

out of covenant relationship with Him, including those who have fallen away. Thus Elisha told the

421

apostate king of Israel: "Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I

would not look toward thee, nor see thee" (2 Kings 3:14).

4:11- see on Lk. 11:22.

4:12 The ability to lead is only given in order to prepare the congregation for acts of service

themselves (Eph. 4:12). ―Christianity was no slick imitation of existing ecclesiastical organisations.

It made no attempt to set up a hierarchy modelled on previously existing institutions. It preferred

diakonia, lowly service, to the grandiose ideas of the Gentiles‖.

4:13- see on Heb. 2:10.

Eph. 4:12,13 speaks of how the body of Christ is built up until we come to "the unity [or,

unanimity] of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the

measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ". I understand this to be describing how the body of

believers is progressively educated, matured, built up, until finally at the Lord's return we are all

brought to be like Christ, to know Him fully, and to "the unity of the faith". The implication would

therefore be that there will never be total understanding of "the faith" in its fullness, nor will there

be "unaninimity" amongst us on every point as a body, until the Lord is back.

Eph. 4:13 parallels the knowledge of the Son of God with "the unity of the faith". To know the one

faith is to know Christ as a person. He is the essence of the one faith. Academic knowledge of a

series of theological propositions in a 'statement of faith', no matter how accurate their formulation

may be, is still not the same as 'knowing Christ'. To perceive those doctrines as they really are, to

know the unity, the sum of the one faith, is to know Christ as a person and come to "the fullness of

Christ". The unity of the faith thus parallels the fullness of Christ. Those doctrines as propositions

are a means to an end; and unless that is perceived they are little worth. So very often men have

argued over those propositions, and in their argument have revealed that they really 'don't get it'-

they simply don't know Christ as a person. They got caught up on the means rather than perceiving

the end- which is to know the Son of God.

4:14 Judah was condemned to being tossed to and fro (2 Chron. 29:8 RV; Is. 54:11); and yet the

spiritually unstable also allow themselves to be tossed to and fro (Eph. 4:14; James 1:6), and

thereby they effectively live out their condemnation now, ahead of the gnashing of teeth which

awaits them. The type of natural Israel being rejected in the wilderness must be instructive as to the

position of those who are the "goats" of spiritual Israel.

In Eph. 4:14,15, the point is made that because we are not blown around with every wind of

doctrine, therefore we deal truly in love (RVmg.). Truthfulness with each other within the one body

of Christ is related to our having known and deeply believed the truth of God. The implication is

also that by speaking and preaching truth, we "grow up into him in all things, which is the head,

even Christ", who is "the Truth" in every way. Notice how Eph. 4 stresses the need for true doctrine

because this is related to truthfulness with each other; if we are not tossed to and fro by false

doctrines, then we will speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:14,15); ―If so be that ye have heard him, and

have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus… wherefore [because of this] put away lying, speak

every man truth with his neighbour‖ in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:21,25).

4:15 Having true doctrine is related to ―speaking the truth‖, ―dealing truly‖ (Eph. 4:13-15 RVmg.)

with each other- as if the sensitive, heartfelt preaching of truth should result in our own truthfulness.

English does not have a verb ―to truth,‖ but Paul uses such a verb when he urges the Ephesians that

― ‗truthing‘ in love‖ they should grow in Christ in all things (Eph 4:15). We might understand this

as ―speaking the truth in love,‖ but more probably we should see truth as a quality of action as well

as of speech. Paul wants his converts to live the truth as well as to speak it. Real spiritual growth is

only possible by a way of life that ‗truths it‘.

422

The state of perfection in the Kingdom is described as us (the complete church of all ages) having

reached, "a perfect man... the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", having grown up into

Christ, who is the head of the body (Eph. 4:13,15). When Christ comes, we will each individually

be made ruler over all that He has (Mt. 24:47), we will each individually be fully righteous, fully

manifesting the Lord Jesus. There seems to be marked connection with the fact (brought out in the

parable of the talents) that we will each have all the Master's goods, and the description in the next

parable of those goods being distributed between us in this life (Mt. 24:47; 25:15). In the Kingdom

we will no longer know partially, as a result of seeing parts of the whole picture; we will see face to

face (1 Cor. 13:9,12 Gk.). See on Lk. 19:13.

4:16 Each member of the body contributes to the overall strength and health of the body. No

member can say they do not need the others. The body ―makes increase of itself‖ and builds itself

up in love, strengthened by the nourishment mediated by the other members (Eph. 4:16). There is

therefore strength and power from outside of ourselves within the body of Christ. Tragically, the

body of believers is perceived by many sinners to be judgmental, shaming, not understanding etc.

The builder of God‘s house is ultimately God, the builder of all (Heb. 11:10). We are God‘s

building (1 Cor. 2:9). But we are also Christ‘s building, in that God has delegated this work to Him.

And yet we build each other up (Rom. 14:19; 15:2), Paul was a master-builder (1 Cor. 3:10), the

body builds itself up (Eph. 4:16). As God has delegated the building to Christ, so He has delegated

it to us. The Ephesians were built up on the foundations of the apostles‘ work- not that they are the

foundation, for no other foundation can there be except Christ (Eph. 2:20 cp. 1 Cor. 3:11). The

building up of those early brethren was on account of the work of the apostles. They were the

foundation, they were ‗Christ‘ to those brethren and converts. Hence they are called the foundation,

whereas Christ is the only foundation. This is how far His work has been delegated to us. Without

the work of the apostles, if they had been lazy or spiritually selfish, there would have been no

Ephesus ecclesia, nor spirituality within it. Quite simply, we are a function of the efforts our

brethren and sisters make to build us up. See on Col. 2:19.

The various parts of the one body supply strength to the rest of us (Eph. 4:16). But the very same

Greek word rendered ―supply‖ occurs in the Phil. 1:19, about the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ.

How does He supply our need and strengthen us? Through the very human members of the one

body. Which is why we so desperately need them, and to walk away from them, reasoning that they

‗give nothing‘, is in a sense to turn away from the supply of the spirit of Jesus.

Cyprian taught that "Whatever and whatsoever kind of man he is, he is not a Christian who is not in

Christ's church... he cannot have God for his Father who has not the church for his mother". And

Church membership depended upon "submission to the bishop... rebellion against him is rebellion

against God... the schismatic, however correct his doctrine or virtuous his life, renounces Christ and

bears arms against the church". Individual spirituality and correctness of faith meant nothing;

obedience to the leaders was paramount. Cyprian even went so far as to say that "the church is

founded on the bishops... held together by the glue of the mutual cohesion of the bishops". This is a

glaring contradiction with the Biblical emphasis upon Christ as the only foundation (1 Cor. 3:11),

and the body being held together on account of being "in Him", compacted and built up by what

"every joint supplies" (Eph. 4:16). This shift from the internal, the spiritual, to the external and

visible, the perception of Christianity as a human organization we belong to, has been seen in the

lives of many individual Christians, churches, denominations, groups etc. over time. The warning is

for us to remain disciples of the Lord Jesus, following Him as it were around Galilee, focused upon

Him alone, and finding the unity with others doing the same which will naturally follow.

―The whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up

in love, as each part does its work" (Ephesians 4:16 NIV). In the context, Paul is demonstrating the

necessity of Jew and Gentile to work together in the ecclesia; they couldn't just run parallel ecclesial

lives, even though there seems to have been temporary concessions to their humanity at the

423

beginning. The newly baptized, Old Testament-ignorant Gentiles had something to contribute to the

Bible-saturated Jewish believers; and, of course, vice versa.

4:17 The way of the flesh, be it wanton immorality or simply living in the vanity of the mind, is not

as the Ephesians had been taught the Gospel of Christ before their baptisms. That basic Gospel had

very practical implications (Eph. 4:17-27). And more than this. The new wine of the Gospel will

destroy a man who holds it unless he changes his life (cp. the bottle), so that it too is new. The new

cloth of the Gospel will rip a man apart who doesn't change from his old clothing. Leaven is an apt

symbol of the Gospel, in that it corrupts terribly if it is left idle. If the principles of the Truth lie

dormant in our lives, they can only destroy us.

4:18 The world is alienated from God on account of their blindness (Eph. 4:18). There is no

blindness in God (1 Jn. 1:5); He describes Himself as covered in eyes (Ez. 1:18; Rev. 4:8). God

almost seems to poke fun at man's blindness, at our inability to perceive the most basic truths. The

Lord's picture of a blind man feeling qualified to pull a splinter out of his brother's eye (with a

superior, condescending air about him) is one such case (Mt. 7:3-5).

4:19 Remember that the hearts of all men have become darkened because of the way they

consistently harden their hearts [in an ongoing sense] from childhood, resulting in them passing

from having a religious conscience to a hardened state (Eph. 4:19). But somewhere deep down, that

―feeling‖ is still there, and can easily be touched by our witness. I find it intriguing to observe how

men who perceive themselves as confirmed ‗atheists‘ find it almost irresistible to blaspheme. When

they spill their coffee or forget something, almost involuntarily their thoughts fly to the God and the

Jesus they so fiercely deny. I‘d estimate that the everyday speech of the ‗atheistic‘ USSR included

more references to ‗God‘ than in that of the ‗Christian‘ West.

4:20 When the Ephesians learnt their first principles from the mouth of Paul and other preachers,

they "heard Him (Christ), and (were) taught by Him" (Eph. 4:20,21); the preacher of Christ closely

manifests his Lord.

4:22 We must "put off the old man" (Eph. 4:22); and yet "ye have put off the old man" (Col. 3:9).

Have we, or haven't we? In God's eyes we have, in that the new man has been created, and the old

man died in the waters of baptism. But of course we are still in the flesh; and the old man must yet

be put off. What happened at our baptism must be an ongoing process; of laying the old man to rest

in death, and rising again in the newness of life. The Gospel 'instructs us to the intent that, having

once and for all put away ungodliness (i.e. in baptism) and worldly lusts, we should live in a holy

manner' (Tit. 2:12 Gk.). Having put these things off in baptism, we must live a life of putting them

off.

Our lusts are deceitful (Eph. 4:22), and so the Devil or ‗deceiver‘ is an appropriate way of

describing them. They are personified, and as such they can be spoken of as ‗the Devil‘ – our

enemy, a slanderer of the truth. This is what our natural ‗man‘ is like – the ‗very Devil‘.

4:23- see on Eph. 1:15.

4:25 We are the body of Christ. We are counted righteous because we are baptized into Him. We

are counted as Him; and we are parts of His body, hands, feet, eyes, internal organs. As such, we are

inextricably linked in with the other members of the body. We cannot operate in isolation from

them. ―We are members one of another... we are members of his body‖ (Eph. 4:25; 5:30). Only

insofar as we belong to each other do we belong to Him. We must perceive ourselves not so much

as individual believers but as members of one body, both over space and over time.

Eph. 4:25 draws a practical conclusion from the one body of Christ: "Wherefore putting away lying,

speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another". If we are one body,

there should therefore be truthfulness between us. No white lying, no gross exaggeration, no

gossiping, no presentation of facts in a distorted way. Why? Because "we are members one of

424

another". If we do behave like this, we are really saying that we are not members of the one body.

The one body is Jesus; and all that is true of Him must be true of us. He is not divided, and neither

should we be, either within our own beings, or as a community.

4:26 Anger in itself is a purely natural reaction, and is seen in both God and His Son. The issue is,

how to "be angry and sin not" (Eph. 4:26)? God "made a path for His anger" with Egypt, by

bringing plagues upon them and slaying their firstborn (Ps. 78:50 RV). Anger has to go somewhere,

for otherwise it burns within us and rises up ultimately into extremely damaging and inappropriate

forms of behaviour. I say 'inappropriate' because pent up anger has a way of bursting forth upon

anyone in its way, who may likely be nothing to do with the cause or object of the initial anger.

Anger is a form of energy, and as such it must be harnessed. Throughout the Old Testament, we

often read of God being "provoked to wrath" by human sin, and His anger burning. There's very

little said about this in the New Testament; and I wonder if this is because the ultimate path which

God made for His anger was in giving His Son to die for human sin, rather than endlessly seeking to

punish human sin and be hurt by it. Immediately let's take an obvious lesson: don't waste your anger

energy on endlessly fighting those who provoke you, but use it positively. Throw it in to some

project or other for the Lord. For anger is to some extent reflective; whilst we remain horns locked

with a situation, both our opponent and ourselves are feeding off each others' anger. Hence the wise

advice of Prov. 22:24,25: "with a wrathful man you shall not go: lest you learn his ways".

Disengage from anger situations.

4:29- see on Mt. 12:33.

4:30 The "Holy Spirit" may refer to a specific Angel set apart for this purpose of strengthening us so

that we might reach the Kingdom, like the wilderness Angel provided Israel with the manna (= the

word of God, so Jesus reasons in Jn. 6) and every type of sustenance in order that they should get

through the wilderness to the promised land. In the same way, the Holy Spirit is associated with our

calling and choosing. The Angel was associated with the sealing of the believers (Rev. 7:2,3). We

must not "grieve the Holy Spirit of God (cp. how Israel vexed the Holy Spirit Angel-Is. 63:10)

whereby ye are sealed". Eph. 4:30 also links this grieving the Holy Spirit (referring to the Holy

Spirit Angel of Is. 63:10) and abusing God's sealing of us, as if by the unspiritual behaviour Paul is

speaking of in Eph. 4 we will truly grieve or sadden our Angel who has sealed us.

4:32 Mt. 6:14 = Eph. 4:32. Jesus said: "If you forgive, you'll be forgiven". Paul subtly changes the

tenses: "You've been forgiven already, so forgive". It's as if Paul is saying: 'Think carefully about

Mt. 6:14. Don't think it means 'If you do this, I'll do that for you'. No. God has forgiven you. But

that forgiveness is conditional on the fact that in the future you will forgive people. If you don't,

then that forgiveness you've already been given is cancelled. This is what Jesus really had in mind'.

This would suggest a very very close analysis of those simple words of Jesus, using all the logic and

knowledge of Biblical principles which Paul had.

Paul does not say we should forgive as Christ is forgiving us. Our forgiveness was granted at

baptism; the power of sin in our lives was overcome by baptism into Christ's death, which destroyed

the devil. Therefore anyone baptized into Christ is not a servant of sin, unless they leave Christ. Of

course, we know that in practice we all keep on sinning. But our spiritual man is in Christ, God

looks upon that side of us, not upon the devil within us. We cannot destroy the devil within us- his

destruction is in death (Rom. 6:23). That natural man cannot be made subject to God's word (Rom.

8:7; Gal. 5:17,18; James 3:8). What God requires is a growth in the spiritual man, living in a way of

life which on balance shows that the new man is more fundamentally 'us' than the old man. As God

eagerly looks upon that new man within us, so we too should perceive the new man in our brethren.

Too often extreme brethren look upon how bad the old man is in a brother, and how publicly he is

manifested (e.g. in marital problems)- rather than assessing the new man, " the hidden man"

which is surely to be found deep within all brethren and sisters.

425

5:2 Do we struggle to live the life of true love, to endure people, even our brethren; are we simply

tired of people, and living the life of love towards them? Does the past exist within us as a constant

fountain of bitterness and regret? ―Let all bitterness, and wrath and anger, and clamour, and evil

speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted,

forgiving one another, even as God for Christ‘s sake [the sake of His cross] hath forgiven you...

walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us" (Eph. 4:31-5:2).

The peace offering was to make a sweet savour. Through His death on the cross, Christ was this:

"Christ... hath given himself for us an offering (a peace offering?) and a sacrifice to God for a

sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. 5:2). If we are in Christ, then God will see us too as a sweet savour.

And this is exactly what 2 Cor. 2:15 says: "We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ". Yet we must

fellowship His sufferings if we are in Him, really fellowship them. The peace offering was to have

the fat and rump "taken off hard by the backbone" (Lev. 3:9). The ruthless division of flesh and

spirit within Christ (shown superbly in the way His wilderness temptations are recorded) must be

seen in us too. We must ask if we are really taking off the fat hard by the backbone. Are we even

prepared for the pain, the pain of self- knowledge and self denial which this will necessitate?

5:3- see on Josh. 23:7.

We need to let passages like Eph. 5:3–5 have their full weight with us. Fornication, covetousness,

all uncleanness should not be ―named amongst us‖, in the same way Israel were not to take even the

names of the Gentile idols onto their lips (Ex. 23:13) – ―but rather giving of thanks‖, knowing that

those who do such things will not be in the Kingdom of God. A thankful attitude, thinking and

speaking of those things with which we will eternally have to do, is to replace thinking and talking

about all the things which shall not be our eternal sphere of thought in the Kingdom age. And yet

our generation faces the temptation like none before it – to privately watch and read of those things,

vicariously involved in them, whilst being under the illusion that we‘re not actually doing them

ourselves. For this is what the entertainment industry is based around.

5:4 According to the New Testament, having a spirit of true thankfulness to God in all things should

help swamp our tendency to sinfulness; the concept of praising God should get such a grip on our

way of thinking that the thinking of the flesh is thereby suppressed. Eph. 5:3,4 states this in so many

words. It reels off a list of forbidden sexual thoughts and actions; and then the antidote is stated:

"Let (them) not once be named among you... but rather giving of thanks". A few verses later the

same medicine is prescribed; this time as the antidote to an unsaintly abuse of alcohol: "Be not

drunk with wine... but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms... singing and

making melody in your heart... giving thanks always for all things" (Eph. 5:18-20). This is a

laboured, triple emphasis on praise as being the antidote to drunkenness.

5:5 Eph. 5:3-5 has some surprises for the attentive reader; the black words on white paper have an

uncanny power: "This ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who

is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ". These are the sort of words we whisk

past, in the relieved confidence that they don't apply to us. But covetousness is there listed as a

carnal sin, along with sexual perversions. That's how bad it is. No one who is covetous will be in the

Kingdom. And therefore it's hard for a rich man to be in the Kingdom. In fact, the Lord says, it's

humanly impossible for a rich man to get there; it's only through God's gracious working to make it

possible that it can happen, that a rich man will scrape into the Kingdom (Mt. 19:23-26). Every one

of us has the elements of covetousness very close to the surface. Materialism is perhaps the direct

equivalent of idol worship under the old covenant. They were to not even desire ―the silver and gold

that is on them… for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God… thou shalt utterly detest it; and thou

[like God] shalt utterly abhor it‖ (Dt. 7:25,26). God despises idolatry; and we also must go a step

beyond merely avoiding materialism; we must despise it.

5:6- see on Mt. 24:4.

426

5:8 At times it seems Paul 'unconsciously' uses a phrase from the parables, out of context, but as an

indication that they were running through his mind (e.g. "children of light" in Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5

is quarried from Lk. 16:8).

5:10 We know right now the principles on which God will judge us. We can judge what is

acceptable to the Lord (Eph. 5:10- judgment day language). We can judge / discern those things

which are excellent in His eyes (Phil. 1:10).

5:12 The sin of Ham in relation to Noah's drunkenness included the fact that he told his brothers

about Noah's shame (Gen. 9:22). This incident seems to be alluded to by Paul when he says that it is

a shame to speak of what sinners do in secret (Eph. 5:12). A large amount of the communication

which would be called 'gossip' includes the communication of sinful things which would be better

not entering the minds of saints in any case- one tends to gossip about a neighbour's adultery rather

than his lost cat.

5:14 At baptism, we were "quickened together with Christ" (Col. 2:13). But Paul wrote to the

baptized saints at Ephesus: "Awake thou that sleepest, and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. 5:14).

It is thought that Paul is quoting here from a first century baptism hymn; he is encouraging them to

be as it were baptized again, spiritually, in coming to life in Christ. Note that the Ephesians were

active in the outward work of the Truth (Rev. 2:2,3); but their real spiritual man was asleep.

5:15 In contexts regarding the evil of our surrounding world, Paul teaches us to 'redeem the time'

(Eph. 5:15; Col. 4:5). This is a word classically used of the market place, in the sense of 'buying up'

while the opportunity is there. Yet the context demands that this pressing need to buy up time be

understood in the light of the evil world around us. Is it not that Paul is saying 'Buy up all the

opportunities to gain back time from this world', in the same spirit as he told slaves "If thou mayest

be made free, use it rather" (1 Cor. 7:21)? This means we shouldn't glorify the use of time for the

necessary things of the world. If we must spend our time in the things of the world, as the NT slaves

simply had to, then God will accept this as done in His service. But we shouldn't use this gracious

concession to do all we can in the life of the world, justifying it by saying it is done 'unto the Lord'.

This concession, in its context, only applies to those who by force of circumstances really must

spend their time in the things of the world (Eph. 6:5-7; 1 Cor. 10:31). We must "break up our fallow

ground" (Heb. 'plough the unploughed'), analayze ourselves from outside ourselves, and use our

time and our ―all things‖ to the utmost of their potential (Jer. 4:3; Hos. 10:12). We were created

"unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10); we

were redeemed that we might be zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14)- not that we might drift through

life playing with our hobbies and with the fascinations of our careers.

5:18 Paul was keen for others to copy John the Baptist, to find in him the inspiration which he too

had found. So he encourages his Ephesians not to drink wine but instead be filled with the Spirit

(Eph. 5:18)- the very language of John (Lk. 1:15). In other words, 'Be like that Spirit-filled zealot

John rather than enjoying the sloppy pleasures of this life!'.

5:19 Eph. 5:19 talks of speaking psalms and hymns "to yourselves... making melody in your heart".

The Greek translated "to make melody" means 'to twitch or twang, i.e. to play on a stringed

instrument' (Strong)- evidently it's a musical term. The implication is that we should so know our

own heart and spend time in communion with our own mind that we know how to rouse our own

feelings in praise. Such self-knowledge is a sure antidote to fleshly thinking.

Get into Christian music; ―speaking to yourselves (a reference to self-talk?) in psalms and hymns

and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord‖ (Eph. 5:19).

5:25- see on Gal. 2:20.

427

The Greek for ―gave himself" is mainly used of the Lord Jesus giving up the spirit to the Father. We

have shown elsewhere that His death was as an act of the will, He gave up His life rather than it

being taken away from Him. This matchless peak of self-control and self-giving for us must

somehow be replicated in the humdrum of daily domestic relationships.

Therefore, "husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it...

so ought men to love their wives" (Eph. 5:25). The Greek for "gave himself" is mainly used of the

Lord Jesus giving up the spirit to the Father. We have shown elsewhere that His death was as an act

of the will, He gave up His life rather than it being taken away from Him. This matchless peak of

self-control and self-giving for us must somehow be replicated in the humdrum of daily domestic

relationships. He carried our sins "that we, being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by

whose stripes (Gk. Wheals- Peter saw them) ye were healed" (1 Pet. 2:24).The husband should love

his wife, "even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body" (Eph. 5:30 RV).

Jesus loved us as much as He loves Himself; He "cannot be separated from the work which He

came to do" (R.R.). He saved Himself so as to save us. And this isn't just atonement theology- this is

to be lived out in married life. As Christ died for us and gave up His last breath for us, so as a

supreme act of the will, the husband must give up his life for his woman. And she can only but

respond to this. These are high ideals. But the very height of them can transform human life in

practice.

5:26 We are presented with the possibility of being "slow to wrath" , being angry, and yet not

sinning. However, these passages are both in the context of warnings against the wrath of man

(James 1:19-21; Eph. 5:26). Surely the point is, that 'righteous anger' is not in itself wrong (witness

the Lord's anger in the temple); but whilst this is allowable for us, the more sensible level for us

frailer men is not to be angry at all.

5:29- see on Rom. 6:19.

The man represents Christ, and the woman the ecclesia. But the ecclesia, all of it, is the body of

Christ; so in this sense husbands should love their wives "as their own bodies. He that loveth his

wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh" (5:28,29). The more we appreciate

the strength and power of typology, the more we will realize the spiritual unity which there should

be between brethren and sisters. The physical body of Christ is not divided- there is only one Jesus

in Heaven. If brethren represent Christ and sisters typify His body, then there should be no division-

either between husbands and wives, or amongst brethren and sisters within Christ's body. Thus

marriage breakdowns and internal ecclesial strife are equally wrong- they both spoil the typology

presented in Eph. 5. They effectively tear Christ's body apart, as men tried to do on the cross. We

say tried to" because ultimately Christ's body is indivisible- in the same way as in a sense His body

was "broken" (as it is by division in the body), whilst in another sense it remained unbroken, in

God's sight. Likewise, the ecclesial body in God's sight is even now not divided- we are one in

Christ.

5:30 The figure of being somebody's body could not be more intense and personal. You touch your

own body, feel your bones beneath your flesh- that's fundamentally you. Whilst of course Christ

does have a separate bodily existence, we are fundamentally Christ. Without us and our sin, Christ

would not have come into existence, nor would He now exist.

Joseph‘s brothers said: "He is our brother and our flesh" (Gen. 37:27). "We are members of his

body, of his flesh and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30).

5:31 The radical value attached to every individual in Christ is brought out especially by the New

Testament teaching about family life. There were many pagan 'household codes', which basically

exhorted the slaves, children and women to be subordinate to the male leaders of the family. Paul

frames his family teaching in exactly the terms of these 'household codes' in order to bring out the

significant differences between God's way and the way of society in this vital area. The fact Paul

428

and Peter in their 'household codes' speak of the head of the house being submissive and having

responsibilities to love, as an act of the will, was quite radical. But those male leaders had to learn

that in Christ, everyone matters, and people can't be treated by their brethren as they are by society

generally, as nothing and nobody, mere cogs in a machine. The familia, or extended family, was of

itself devaluing to persons. A woman married into her husband's extended family, and effectively

lost so much of her uniqueness as an individual- indeed women were so often treated as faceless.

But Paul teaches, on the sure foundation of Genesis, that a man should leave his parents and cleave

to his wife (Eph. 5:31). This was far more radical than may now appear. The man was being taught

that merely perpetuating the extended family, using the woman you received in your arranged

marriage in order to continue and expand the family, was not in fact God's way. He was to leave that

extended family mindset and personally cleave to his wife in love- love which was an act of the

will. He was to start a new family unity; to love his wife rather than his extended family "as

himself". Likewise fathers are told to bring their children up in the instruction of the Lord Jesus

(Eph. 6:4)- when the task of training up children was left to the women, older children and slaves

(especially the paidagogos) in the extended family. The value of persons implicit here was thus a

call to be essentially creative, independent, perceiving the personal [rather collectively-imposed]

value in both oneself and others in ones' family.

―God hath tempered the (ecclesial) body together... that there should be no schism in the body" (1

Cor. 12:24,25) uses a related word as in Eph. 5:31 concerning how a man "shall be joined unto his

wife... I speak concerning Christ and the church". Because both man and woman ultimately

represent Christ, there should be no schism between either believers, nor husbands and wives.

. Husbands and wives become "one flesh". But "flesh" is almost equivalent to "body" (see Eph.

2:15,16; Col. 1:22)- their union of "one flesh" is parallel to the union of the ― one body" within the

ecclesia. We should all be "perfectly joined together (marriage language) in the same mind" (1 Cor.

1:10). Recall how ―Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor" (Num. 25:3) in a sexual context. Hos. 9:10

comments on this as meaning that Israel "Separated themselves unto" Baalpeor. We cannot be

'joined to' something unless we are 'separated from' something else. If we are truly joined to Christ

and each other, we must be separated from idolatry. It is impossible to experience this 'joining' with

believers who are not 'separated'- one cannot be 'joined' in intercourse to more than one person. We

cannot serve two masters without hating God

6:1 Given the predominance of slaves, children and women in the early churches, we are to imagine

the house church meetings with plenty of women, nursing mothers, kids running everywhere. Eph.

6:1 and Col. 3:20 seem to suppose that children would be present at the church gatherings and

would listen attentively to what was said.

6:1-3 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord...honour thy father and mother, for this is the first

commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth"

(Eph. 6:1-3) is a strange allusion to Jacob; " Jacob obeyed his father and his mother" (28:7) by

going to Padan Aram (actually he fled there, but the record frames it as if he did so purely out of

obedience to his parents and from a desire to find a wife in the Faith). Because Jacob did this, God

promised him at Bethel that it would be well with him (32:9), and he too was given the Abrahamic

promises of living long on the earth / land. Thus Jacob's fleeing to Padan Aram is seen by the Spirit

in Paul as a righteous act of obedience to faithful parents, which resulted in him receiving the

promises. And yet his flight was rooted in fear, and at the time he did not accept the promises as

relevant to him, neither did he believe Yahweh was his God (28:20). And yet the positive side of

Jacob (i.e. his obedience to his parents) is seized on and held up as our example.

6:4- see on Eph. 5:31.

6:8 "Whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord" (Eph. 6:8)- at

judgment day. Not in this life, when the righteous often suffer for their goodness. Every good deed

will then have its recognition.

429

6:12 spirits- see on Dan. 10:20,21.

Eph. 6:11-13: An Account Of Paul’s Battle With The Judaizers?

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we

wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the darkness

of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places". The devil here is the Jewish system with

its associated Angels. The same phrase "Principalities and powers" is used in Col. 2:15 concerning

the Angels who gave the Law. The phrase "wiles" is only used again in 4:14 ("Lie in wait")

regarding the Judaizer-devil circulating false doctrine. The rulers of the Jewish heavenlies were both

literal Angels and the Judaizers whom they represented in the court of Heaven. Eph. 6:13 warns of a

forthcoming battle: "Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in

the evil day"- the spiritual battle between the Law of Moses and that of Christ which is detailed in

Rev. 12. Paul could see that in the final conflict against the Judaizers, he would need courage to

speak out as he should: "Pray... for me... that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the

mystery of the Gospel" (v. 19)- a phrase often used in connection with Gentiles and Jews having

equal standing with God through Christ.

The Greek for "wrestle" in Eph. 6:12 is the same word as "cast out". The battle of the Christians

then was not to cast out men- "we wrestle not against flesh and blood". This is a real difficulty for

any 'explanation of difficult passages' that tries to make this refer to human rulers alone. It was the

Jewish devil that needed casting out, and the Angel principalities and powers which co-ordinated it.

There is no doubt that "principalities and powers" does also refer to Jewish and Roman authorities

(Lk. 12:11; 20:20; Mt. 7:29 etc). This is to be expected once we understand that the devil and satan

of the New Testament often refers to both Jewish and Roman systems and the Angels behind them.

Remember that the Angels rule the world. God's system of manifestation remains constant. In the

same way as the "pattern of things in the Heavens" in the Angelic organization there was repeated

on earth through the organization of the tabernacle and the "elohim" of Israel's judges and priests, so

that Heavenly system is maybe also reflected through the judges and leaders of the world, every one

of whom is controlled by an Angel. Hence the identical language used for both Angels and worldly

rulers- in the same way as Angel-Cherubim language is used concerning both Angels and earthly

armies, e. g. of Babylonians, who fulfilled their will.

This passage seems a footnote to the epistle: "Finally, my brethren..." (v. 10). This is similar to the

footnotes begun in Phil. 3:1; Gal. 6:12 and 1 Tim. 6:20, all of which warn against the Judaizers -

indicating the immense importance Paul attached to the coming struggle with the "Principalities and

powers‖.

The Wiles of the Devil Comments

1. Angels are not mentioned here.

2. This passage lists various things against which the Christian fights – it does not say that those

things are trying to enter men and make them sin.

3. The world is under God‘s control, not that of evil beings in heaven (Dan. 4:32). ―All power‖ in

heaven and in earth has been given to Jesus (Mt. 28:18) by God (Rev. 3:21; Lk. 22:29), so it cannot

also be possessed by wicked beings in heaven.

4. We have seen in chapter 2 that there can be no sinful being in Heaven itself (Ps. 5:4,5; Hab. 1:13;

Mt. 6:10).

430

5. Verse 12 may be translated ―For we wrestle not only against flesh and blood...‖ i.e., we do not

only wrestle against individual men, but against organized systems.

6. There is much figurative language in vv. 11–17 – the armour of the Christian is figurative, as is

the wrestling, seeing that ―the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men‖ (2

Tim. 2:24); v. 12 should be similarly interpreted.

7. If the ―Devil‖ was cast out of heaven in Eden, how could he and his followers still have been in

the literal heavens in Paul‘s time?

Suggested Explanations

1. The context is set in v. 13. The preparation was to be because the church was facing ―the evil

day‖. This refers to a period of especial persecution of the church, which was to come at the hands

of the Romans, seeing they were the only people with enough power to create an ―evil day‖ for the

Christian church at the time Paul was writing. (1 Pet. 4:12; 5:8–9). The wrestling was against ―the

rulers of this dark world‖, who at the time were the Romans. Note that the wrestling is spiritual

wrestling to keep the faith (2 Cor. 10:3–5). This time of evil had already begun as Paul was writing

(Eph. 5:16) – ―the days are evil‘.

2. ―Principalities‖ is translated ―magistrate‖ in Luke 12:11; human ―rule‖, in the sense of human

government, in 1 Corinthians 15:24, and the ―power‖ of the Roman governor in Luke 20:20. So it

does not necessarily have reference to any power or prince in heaven.

3. ―Powers‖ is translated as the ―authority‖ of the Roman governor in Luke 20:20, and regarding

one having ―authority‖ in Matthew 7:29. We must ―be subject to principalities and powers‖ (Titus

3:1) in the sense of earthly governments, insofar as they do not ask us to do things which are

contrary to the law of God (Acts 5:29; 4:19; Mt. 19:17). If ―principalities and powers‖ are evil

beings in heaven whom we must resist, why are we told to be subject to them? If we accept that they

refer to human governors and authorities, then this is easily understandable.

4. ―Wicked spirituals in high (heavenly) places‖. We have shown that this cannot refer to wicked

beings in heaven itself. The exalted position of the true believers in Christ is described as being ―in

heavenly places in Christ‖ (Eph. 2:6). ―Spirituals‖ can be used to describe those in the church who

had the gift of the spirit; having given a list of commands as to how the gifts of the spirit should be

used, Paul concludes: ―If any man (in the church) think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual (i.e.

spiritually gifted, see N.I.V.), let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the

commandments of the Lord‖ (1 Cor. 14:37). 1 Corinthians 14 shows there was a big problem in the

church of believers misusing the spirit gifts. Hebrews 6:4–6 describes some Jewish Christians in the

first century who had the gift of the spirit, but who were leading the church away from true

Christianity by their attitude. These would be a prime example of wicked spirituals in the heavenlies

(i.e. in the church). The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (2 Sam. 15:25, cp.

1 Kings 8:30; 2 Chron. 30:27; Ps. 20:2,6; 11:4; Heb. 7:26). The church is the new temple. In the

same way as wicked people could be in the temple, so, too, they could be in the heavenlies of the

church. Possession of the Spirit did not mean that someone was necessarily acceptable in God‘s

sight, e.g. Saul possessed it for a time (1 Sam. 10:10) as did the judges of Israel (Num. 11:17)

although they were not righteous; they did not believe the report of Joshua and Caleb and therefore

were condemned to die like the other Israelites, despite their having the Spirit – Psalm 82:1–7 says

as much. For a period the churches of Revelation 2 and 3 possessed the gifts despite their errors,

until eventually their candlestick was removed (cp. Acts 20:28–29; Eph. 4:11; Rev. 2:5). Thus the

wicked spirits in the heavenlies were apostate Christians within the church, leading the church into

an ―evil day‖ of temptation.

431

5. Thus the threat to the church was twofold: from the Roman/Jewish persecution and from the

(often Judaist) ―false apostles‖ (2 Cor. 11:13) within. Remember Ephesians 6:11–13 was written to

the church at Ephesus. Paul had previously warned them about this threat from within: ―For I know

this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of

your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them‖ (Acts

20:29–30). Rotherham‘s translation brings this out well: ―Our struggle is against the principalities

against the authorities against the world – rulers of this darkness, AND against spiritual wickedness

in heavenlies‖.

6. Thus, all these things are ―the wiles of the Devil‖ (v. 11) in the sense of the evil desires of the

flesh expressed through the system of world government and apostate Christians.

7. ―Heavenly places‖ may also refer to positions of authority in the secular world. Thus the king of

Babylon was a figurative ―star‖ in heaven (Is. 14:12), i.e. a great ruler. Jesus is the ―sun‖ (Mal. 4:2),

the saints are the ―stars‖ (Dan. 12:3) of the future order. The present ―heavens‖ of man will be

replaced by the new Heavens when the Kingdom is established on the earth (2 Pet. 3:13), i.e. the

positions of power and rulership, now in the hands of sinful men, will be handed over to the true

Christians. The saints of the Most High shall possess the kingdoms of men (Dan. 7:27). Thus

wicked spirits in the ―heavens‖ could refer to men of wicked minds in places of power in the world

who were persecuting the Christians.

8. It is just possible to still interpret ―the Devil‖ in v. 11, as having a certain degree of reference to

the ―Jewish Satan‖. The ―Heavenly places‖ of v. 12 may refer to the Jewish heavenlies; 2 Peter 3

and Deuteronomy 32:1 speak of the Jewish heavens. This is strengthened by the fact that the ―sun,

moon and stars‖ are sometimes figurative of the Jews (e.g. Genesis 22:17; 37:9; Dan. 8:9,10,24).

We have shown that the wicked spirituals may have reference to the Jewish Christians who were

spirit–gifted, but turned to apostasy. They would thus be in both the Christian and Jewish

―heavenlies‖. The threat from within the church posed by the Judaizers infiltrating the church, who

were Jews. Thus ―the Devil‖ was manifested in the Roman authorities and the Jews within the

Christian church. The two entities were connected insofar as the Jewish synagogue powers often

informed the Roman authorities against the Christians.

The ―wiles of the Devil‖ offers support to the Jewish context in that the Greek word for ―wiles‖ is

elsewhere translated ―to lie in wait to deceive‖, in a verse which talks about the Judaizers subtly

trying to introduce false doctrine into the church: the church was being ―tossed to and fro, and

carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby

they lie in wait to deceive‖ (Eph. 4:14). If the ―heavenly places‖ also represent the Jewish system,

further meaning is given to Ephesians 3:3–10: ―The mystery... that the Gentiles should be fellow

heirs (with the Jews), and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel...

To make all men (both Jews and Gentiles) see what is the fellowship of the mystery... To the intent

now that unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the

manifold wisdom of God‖, i.e. that by the church showing the unity that existed between Jew and

Gentile within it, the Jewish leaders (―principalities and powers in heavenlies‖) might come to

appreciate ―the manifold wisdom of God‖. This, in turn, opens up John 17:21: ―That they all (Jews

and Gentiles) may be one... that the world (this phrase almost always means the Jewish world in

John‘s Gospel) may believe that You have sent me‖.

The ―evil day‖ of v. 13 would be a result of the Judaizers, who were ―evil men and seducers‖ (2

Tim. 3:13). For the links between 2 Timothy 3 and the Judaizers, see notes on 2 Timothy 2:26;

between them and ―seducers‖, see ―Suggested Explanation‖ No. 2 of 1 Timothy 5:14.

432

Another Approach

David Pitt-Francis expounded the view that many of the later New Testament documents are full

commentary upon and critical allusion to popular ideas of false religion which were circulating at

the time. His commentary on Ephesians 6 bears quoting at more length (1)

:

―The object of the Christian message was to shake such imagined deities out of their places, so that

men would give real glory to Christ, and to the God of Heaven alone. Paul describes the conflict of

Christian witness as a struggle, not against flesh and blood but... ―against the principalities, against

the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness; against the spiritual hosts of

wickedness in the heavenly places‖. To many unacquainted with the real impact of the gospel, both

sun and moon seemed to have personalities which they did not possess, as did the stars of heaven,

heaven itself, and those exalted parts of nature such as mountains and islands. Thus Isaiah 2, which

contains primarily a prophecy against idolatry in Israel and describes idol–worship in the context of

‗high mountains‘ and ‗lofty hills‘ contains a description of the flight of men into caves and holes of

the rocks from the terror of God, and this description is borrowed in Revelation. The end of the

worship of sun, moon and stars is also foretold by Isaiah in a later passage, where the imagined gods

of heaven are described as being punished: ―On that day, the Lord will punish the host of heaven, in

heaven – and the kings of the earth, on earth – they will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit...

then the moon will be ashamed, and the sun confounded for the Lord of hosts will reign.‖

Here the host of heaven cannot represent the kings of the earth, who are separately described in this

passage. The kings imprison themselves in a pit, just like those of chapter 2 who enter the caves and

holes of the earth and the chief men of the sixth seal. The effect of Christian testimony would be the

downfall of the imagined gods of the ancient world who were all associated with the exalted things

of nature. In a Graeco–Roman context, for example the sun would have been associated with

Apollo, the moon with Artemis, the stars with many deities and heaven itself with Uranus.

Mountains and islands were not only objects of worship, but often places of worship (compare the

‗high place‘ worship of apostate Israel). Yet the Graeco–Roman context is a partial and deceptive

one, and has resulted in a restricted and partial understanding of the prophecy.

The interpretation is the obvious one, and yet the most neglected one. In the Old Testament, the

words ‗sun‘ and ‗moon‘ occur frequently as the objects of false worship. The phrase ‗host of

heaven‘ (i.e. the stars) is similarly used. The teaching that those things that are exalted in nature

represented the gods that were then thought to exist, against whom Christianity made its onslaughts

was plainly accepted by the early Church in its reading of passages such as: ‗every mountain and

hill shall be made low‘ – to prepare a highway for the progress of the Gospel. There are not, nor

have there ever been ‗spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places‘ in the sense in which the

phrase may primarily have been understood by converted pagans, but the adoration of sun, moon

and stars has dominated the religious cults of every nation under heaven, and every kind of evil has

been associated with it. The Old Testament prophecies, such as those quoted from Isaiah, were

taken to mean that the gods would lose their power, because of Christian testimony, for the bulk of

people in the days of Isaiah and of John would have regarded sun, moon and stars as personalities in

their own right, whether they worshipped them or not. Every nation worshipped its sun-god and

moon-god. The light of sun and moon was equated by many with the supreme light of God Himself.

The perverted worship of all nations was directed to the host of heaven, and Isaiah, in the passages

quoted foresaw the time when the host of heaven would be ‗ashamed‘ by the supreme light of

Divine Truth. It would have been tedious in Revelation to have named specifically the deities of

Greece and Rome, far less those of all other nations. The names of the sun-god, Apollo, Ra, Amon,

Baal, Bel-Marduk... would have alone formed quite a catalogue. Add the names of the moon–god,

433

the host of heaven, the sky, island – and mountain–gods and the list would have been impossibly

long. Further, this chapter does not, as does Isaiah, mention those associated with oaks and trees, but

only the exalted obstacles to the progress of the Gospel, those in the sky, and those that project

towards the sky. Jesus‘ words are even more concise, for He says that the ‗powers of heaven‘ will

be shaken. These powers are not natural phenomena (e.g. The ‗order‘ or ‗course‘ of nature). In its

original context the word meant forces or armies. It is inconceivable that angelic armies should be

shaken, hence the word must, using the language of Ephesians, mean those imaginary forces reputed

to exist in the heavens, the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places. This collection of

‗powers‘ was the pantheistic ragbag of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon and the other ancient nations.

These powers would lose their control over peoples‘ minds because of the boldness of the Church in

its preaching. They would make way for the Lamb of God to occupy heaven, and much later human

scientific knowledge would reveal them to be no more than sterile masses of matter. Thus, the

‗principalities and powers‘, the ‗powers of heaven‘, ‗the host of heaven‘ would soon lose their

influence. Shortly, Clement of Alexandria would be derisory in his ‗Exhortation to the Gentiles‘

about the apparent impotence of those gods, who had once seemed to be so active‖.

Note (1) David Pitt-Francis, The Most Amazing Message Ever Written (Irchester: Mark Saunders Books,

1984) chapter 4.

6:15 Eph. 6:15 speaks of our each being 'sandalled' with the preparation of the Gospel. Who

prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, wearing sandals? John the Baptist. It seems Paul is

alluding to John here, setting him up as the preacher's example. The reference to "loins girt" (Eph.

6:14) would also be a John allusion- the record twice (in Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6) stresses how John had

his 'loins girded'. See on Mt. 10:32.

6:18- see on Mt. 26:41; Lk. 12:37.

6:19 Paul saw the Lord‘s ―boldness‖ as an imperative to him to likewise be ―bold‖ in preaching

(Eph. 6:19). We all find it hard to be bold in witness, and yet in this as in all spiritual endeavour,

‗thy fellowship shall make me strong‘. A deeper sense of the presence of Jesus, a feeling for who

He was and is, a being with Him, will make us bold too. Even Paul found it hard; he asked others to

pray for him, that he would preach ―boldly‖ [s.w.] as he ought to (Eph. 6:19); and their prayers were

heard, for in his imprisonment during which he wrote Ephesians, he preached boldly (Acts 28:31

s.w.); indeed, boldness characterised his whole life (Phil. 1:20 s.w.). In passing, we note how Paul

felt spiritually weaker than he was; he felt not bold, when he was bold; and we see how the

admission of weakness to others and their prayers for it can grant us the victory we seek. The point

is, who the Lord is, we are. Or, we must be. If He was bold, if He was apt to teach and patient, so

must we be; indeed, so are we, if we are truly in Him. Likewise, all the Father is, we are to manifest

if we bear His Name.

6:20- see on Mt. 26:35.

After his conversion, we sense from the record that the preaching Paul was in his element. The

record of his early preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem is recorded with the same rubric: he

preached "boldly", and on each occasion it seems he would have gone on, utterly oblivious of the

fact he was heading for certain death, had not the other brethren "taken" him and quietly slipped him

out of those cities (Acts 9:27). The same word translated " boldly" occurs later, years later, when

Paul asks his converts to pray for him, that he would speak "boldly, as I ought to speak" (Eph. 6:20).

He has already asked them this in v.19; he asks for the same thing twice. And he confessed his same

problem to the Colossians (Col. 4:4). As he got older, he found it harder to be bold. First of all, in

those heady days in Jerusalem and Damascus, it was the most natural thing in the world for him.

But as time went by, it became harder for him to do this.

434

PHILIPPIANS

1:1 We must respect elders (and indeed all people) for who they are as persons, and not for any

‗office‘ they may appear to hold. Notice how in Phil. 1:1 Paul omits the definite article (―the‖) in

addressing bishops and deacons. Those words indicate what they do for people, rather than any

position in a hierarchy. Jesus seems to have outlawed the use of any official titles for His ecclesia

(Mt. 23:8-12).

Paul never speaks of an ecclesial ‗elder‘ but of elders in the plural. The same can be said of

―bishops (overseers), see Phil.1:1; Acts 20:28. Our groups may have secretaries or teachers, but this

individual must never be seen as the elder. There is only one author [Gk. ‗pioneer‘] of our faith: the

Lord Himself, who worked in our lives to bring us to Himself. This is stressed in Acts 3:15; 5:31;

Heb. 2:10; 12:2.

1:4 There‘s nothing wrong with a Christian experiencing both joy and sorrow at the same time. The

Lord‘s description of His ‗joy‘ at the time of His being the ultimate ‗man of sorrows‘ is an obvious

example. But consider too Paul‘s language to the Philippians. On one hand he speaks insistently of

his joy: ―I pray always with joy… Christ is being preached, and I am glad… I will also continue to

be happy… I am glad, and I share my joy… it made me very happy (Phil. 1:4,18; 2:17; 4:10). And

yet on the other hand, he speaks of his sorrows at that very same time: ―…that I may receive news

about you that will cheer me up… keep me from having one sorrow after another‖ (Phil. 2:19,27).

1:5 ―Your participation in the [preaching of the] gospel‖ is paralleled with ―your faith‖ (Phil. 1:5). If

we really believe, we will be involved in the preaching of what we believe.

1:7 Phil. 1:7 speaks of the "defence and confirmation of the gospel". These are legal terms- the

Greek word translated "defence" means a plea entered in a court of law; and "confirmation" refers to

supporting evidence offered to a judge. Paul's idea is that in our preaching, our audiences are the

judge; and we are entering a plea for the case of none other than God Himself, and His Son. We

have to ask whether our witness to the world is indeed a plea- or whether it's a case of merely

getting people in our own social group to just drop by at our church rather than their usual one. The

fact we are speaking on God's behalf, pleading for His case to be accepted in the hard hearts of men,

should impart an urgency, a desire to penetrate minds, and persistence in our witness.

Paul had "fellowship in the Gospel" with the Philippians, "because... ye all are partakers with me of

grace" (Phil. 1:5-7 RV). All those in the Lord Jesus by valid baptism, and who remain in Him by

faithful continuance in His way, are partakers of His gracious pardon, salvation, and patient

fellowship; and they will, naturally and inevitably, reflect this to their brethren as part of their

gratitude to Him.

1:9-see on 2 Cor. 12:15.

Our love abounds more and more through ―discernment, so that ye may prove the things that differ‖

(RVmg.). We grow by being given different situations to respond to, in order to develop our

judgment- what Eph. 5:10 calls ―proving what is acceptable unto the Lord‖. By reason of use our

spiritual senses are exercised to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14). This is why, be it in church or

family or deeply personal life, our consciences are constantly being probed and exercised by the

situations which Providence leads us into. And thus we grow in sensing more keenly right and

wrong, more victoriously overcoming all the temptations whose strength lies in the fact that in the

heat of the moment we waver as to what is right and wrong… and the end result of this increased

and heightened discernment, Paul says, is a love which abounds ―yet more and more‖ (Phil. 1:9).

1:10 Paul exhorts us to be "blameless" (Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 5:23)- and yet uses the same word, in

the same letters, to describe how he was "blameless" (Phil. 3:6; 1 Thess. 2:10). See on Gal. 4:12; 1

Tim. 1:15.

435

We know right now the principles on which God will judge us. We can judge what is acceptable to

the Lord (Eph. 5:10- judgment day language). We can judge / discern those things which are

excellent in His eyes (Phil. 1:10).

1:11 Philippians 1:11, which speaks of us being filled with the fruits of righteousness- i.e. the

righteous characteristics of God of Ex.34- unto the glory of God. The R.V. of Ex.34:5-7 says that

God is full of these attributes- hence Phil.1:11 talks of us being filled with these things too if we

bear the Name, even in this life. The idea of fullness and being filled often occurs in the New

Testament in the context of the glory. Eph.1:23 describes the church as "His body, the fullness of

Him (God?) that filleth all in all". Thus we are "the" fullness of God and Christ. "We beheld His

glory... full of grace and truth (alluding to Ex. 34)... and of His fullness have all we received" (John

1:14,16). See on Eph. 1:23.

1:12 Paul reflected: ―the things that have happened to me have really helped the progress of the

gospel‖ (Phil. 1:12). If we are truly focused on God‘s agenda, knowing we have His backing, then

all setbacks, even our death itself, will be understood by us as all for the ultimate advancement of

the aims we are working towards. It‘s a battle, a war, a campaign, a race, which we can‘t ultimately

lose. With God on our side, we have to win. And we shall.

1:14- see on Acts 2:46.

1:19 supply- see on Zech. 4:14.

There seems reason to believe that the gift of the Spirit is a way of describing answered prayer. The

giving of "good things to them that ask" in prayer is the same as the giving (gift) of the Holy Spirit

(Mt.7:11 cp. Lk.11:13). Phil.1:19 parallels "Your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus

Christ". Similarly, 1 Jn.3:24 says that we are given the Spirit as a result of our obedience to the

commands; verse 22 says that obedience to those commands leads to our prayers being answered.

Thus our confidence is due to having our prayers heard (1 Jn.5:14) and also due to having the Spirit

act in our lives (1 Jn.3:21,24; 4:13), seeing that prayer is answered by the Spirit's work.

Phil.1:19 is made a mess of in many translations. Moffat does better with "The outcome of all this, I

know, will be my release". The Greek here is almost identical to Job 13:16 LXX: "Though he slay

me... even that is to me an omen of salvation‖. The context is of Job speaking of the good

conscience he had maintained with God; similarly Paul's good conscience made him fearless of

approaching death, as he also made clear when on trial for his life (Acts 23:1; 24:16).

1:20- see on Eph. 6:19.

"Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death" (Phil.1:20) seems to echo

Job 13:13-15 (especially in RVmg.), where Job says he is willing to face every trial, but knows that

death will be his lot; yet he is certain that God will still be glorified through this. All of this is very

apposite to Paul's situation.

1:21 When he speaks of ―…that I may win Christ….to live is Christ‖, his idea seems to be of

attaining a spirituality even in this life where the life we live is Christ living in us, totally reflected

in our actions (Phil. 1:21).

"To die is gain" (Phil.1:21) was Job's attitude too, particularly in Job 10:20-22, where whilst

recognizing the unpleasantness of death he is speaking, in the context, as if he were willing to suffer

it to maintain his integrity with God. Paul is reasoning along similar lines.

The picture of Paul in prison, having reached this spiritual pinnacle, fired the minds and living of

"many of the brethren in the Lord" (Phil. 1:21). And for me too, the old and brave Paul in that cell is

the man I fain would be And yet as his perception of Christ and his surpassing excellency

increased, so did his warnings against apostasy, and the need to hold on to true doctrine. In other

words, his absorption and appreciation of the Spirit of Christ was what fired his zeal for purity of